A new federal lawsuit claims that procedural barriers and lack of disability accommodations by court officials have prevented an individual from accessing the Ohio judicial system, raising questions about due process and equal access under the law. The complaint was filed by John Berman in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on March 27, 2026, naming several judges and clerks as defendants in their official capacities.
According to the filing, Berman alleges that ongoing administrative, procedural, and constitutional violations by Ohio judicial officers and clerks have denied him meaningful access to state courts. The complaint outlines incidents where court clerks rejected his initial filings based on what he describes as arbitrary or shifting requirements, including a refusal to provide a reasonable accommodation under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for notarization due to his “incomplete quadriplegia” disability.
The dispute began on December 1, 2025, when Berman submitted a complaint to the Supreme Court of Ohio along with a fee waiver application. Clerk Robert Vaughn rejected this filing solely because it lacked notarization. Berman states that obtaining notarization is physically onerous due to his disability. He had included an ADA Title II request seeking a waiver of this requirement and attached a previously-notarized affidavit. After contacting the clerk’s office by email and resubmitting his documents through the court’s electronic portal, Berman says the clerk dropped the notarization objection but introduced new reasons for rejection instead. These actions allegedly created what Berman calls a “cat-and-mouse game” that made it impossible for him to meet filing deadlines or have his case docketed.
Berman reports similar experiences in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, where Clerk Nailah K. Byrd and deputies imposed additional barriers over six months—including requirements about document spacing—before finally docketing his complaint. Once docketed, Judge Joan Synenberg issued what Berman describes as an unexplained 15-word dismissal: “DEFENDANT MLM’S MOTION TO DISMISS, FILED 10/31/2024, IS GRANTED. THE CASE IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.” No further explanation or findings were provided.
Citing DeHart v. Aetna (1984), Berman argues that Ohio courts must decide cases on their merits whenever possible and must give explicit reasoning when dismissing cases on purely procedural grounds. He contends that both Judge Synenberg’s dismissal order and subsequent affirmations by appellate judges failed to provide any reasoned basis for review or appeal. The appellate panel—consisting of Presiding Judge Michael John Ryan, Judge Anita Laster Mays, and Judge Kathleen Ann Keough—affirmed the dismissal without referencing arguments made by opposing parties or addressing key legal precedents cited by Berman.
Berman further claims that these practices violate due process rights established in Evitts v. Lucey (1985) and Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982), which require courts to provide adequate notice and opportunity for claimants to present their cases before terminating them with prejudice.
The complaint asserts three main causes of action: violation of due process rights; discrimination under ADA Title II for failure to accommodate his disability; and denial of access to courts through arbitrary clerk actions. Specifically regarding ADA compliance, Berman argues that public entities are required under federal regulations (28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(7)) to make reasonable modifications so individuals with disabilities can participate equally in public services—including court proceedings.
Berman seeks declaratory relief stating that these practices are unlawful; injunctions requiring retroactive acceptance of ADA-accompanied filings (including his December 1 submission); injunctions mandating explicit reasons be given for all purely procedural dismissals; prohibitions against shifting or arbitrary clerk-imposed barriers; costs; and further equitable relief as deemed appropriate by the court.
The case lists no demand for monetary damages but focuses exclusively on changes in procedure going forward—a point emphasized throughout the complaint as justification for why judicial immunity should not apply here since only equitable relief is sought.
The named defendants include Judge Joan Synenberg (Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas), Clerk Nailah K. Byrd (Cuyahoga County), Clerk Robert Vaughn (Supreme Court of Ohio), Presiding Judge Michael John Ryan (Eighth District Court of Appeals), Judge Anita Laster Mays (Eighth District Court of Appeals), Judge Kathleen Ann Keough (Eighth District Court of Appeals), and Administrative Judge Eileen A. Gallagher (Eighth District Court of Appeals). The case number is 1:26-cv-00739-BMB.
Source: 126cv00739_Berman_v_Synenberg_Complaint_Northern_District_Ohio.pdf
