A recent federal complaint claims that local government officials used court procedures to punish a citizen for his speech and newsgathering activities at the Toledo Municipal Courthouse. The suit alleges that these actions were taken after the individual engaged in recording and reporting on matters of public concern and pursued civil-rights litigation involving state and local actors.
The complaint was filed by William J. Amato, acting pro se, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on April 6, 2026. The defendants named include the City of Toledo; Vallie Bowman-English in her individual and official capacities; Judge Joshua W. Lanzinger in his official capacity for declaratory relief only; as well as unknown court security officers, bailiffs, deputies, clerks, administrative staff, and prosecutorial participants involved in the events described.
According to the filing, Amato was present at the Toledo Municipal Courthouse on January 13, 2026. He states he was conducting lawful civil-rights outreach in public areas of the building while documenting his activities as a citizen journalist using his mobile phone. The complaint asserts that “the video did not capture any courtroom proceedings, jurors, witnesses, victims, restricted areas, or confidential documents,” nor did it disrupt any court function.
Amato claims that after he finished recording himself speaking about civil-rights issues in a public lobby area—without interfering with any ongoing proceeding—he was approached by courthouse personnel regarding an alleged prohibition on video recording within the courthouse. The incident ended with Amato leaving “without further incident.” No arrest or citation occurred at that time.
More than five weeks later, on February 26, 2026, Judge Joshua W. Lanzinger signed a notice ordering Amato to appear at a hearing to determine whether he should be held in indirect contempt under Ohio law for violating Local Rule 6F regarding recordings. The notice was captioned “STATE OF OHIO Vs. AMATO, WILLIAM,” which Amato argues created confusion about whether he faced criminal prosecution or contempt proceedings.
Amato alleges he did not receive timely notice of this hearing because it was mailed to an incorrect address—6004 E. Pembridge—instead of his actual residence. As a result, he missed the scheduled March 26 hearing date and learned afterward from a clerk that he “should have a warrant” because of his absence.
The lawsuit claims these actions amounted to retaliation for protected First Amendment activity: “The delayed initiation of an indirect contempt proceeding… coupled with the absence of any on-scene disruption or disobedience supports a strong and plausible inference that the contempt process was used as a tool of retaliation for Plaintiff’s speech.” Amato further contends that enforcement practices were selectively applied against him due to his criticism of public officials and role as a citizen journalist.
In addition to First Amendment claims regarding retaliation and selective enforcement of courthouse rules against expressive activity outside courtroom proceedings, Amato asserts violations of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. He argues that defective notice practices deprived him of an opportunity to defend himself before facing potential arrest or sanction: “The combination of mailing the notice to an incorrect address… falls below the minimum requirements of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.” The complaint also raises substantive due process concerns over what it describes as arbitrary government conduct lacking legitimate justification.
Amato seeks compensatory damages “in an amount not less than $1,500,000” for emotional distress and reputational injury caused by these events. He also requests punitive damages against individual non-immune defendants whose conduct is found malicious or reckless; declaratory relief stating that defendants’ actions violated constitutional rights; preliminary and permanent injunctions barring future retaliation; orders requiring preservation of evidence related to these incidents; costs; attorney fees if counsel appears later; and other appropriate relief deemed just by the court.
The case is identified as Civil Action No. 3:26-cv-00813-JRK before Judge Knepp (with Magistrate Judge Clay also listed). William J. Amato represents himself pro se in this matter.
Source: 326cv00813_Amato_v_City_of_Toledo_Complaint_Northern_District_Ohio.pdf
