Trending
EAST LIVERPOOL -- Attorneys for the City of East Liverpool, which has been named a defendant in a lawsuit filed by former East Liverpool City Police Officer Christopher Green, have filed a motion requesting what they consider to be unnecessary, unrelated and scandalous statements made by Green to be stricken from Green's First Amendment complaint.
"Given the national and societal backdrop from which former city police officer (Christopher) Green filed this lawsuit, allowing certain inflammatory non-essential statements to remain in the complaint compromises public confidence in the city's police department and the court system serving Columbiana County," the motion states.
Green, who was fired from the East Liverpool Police Department on June 24, 2021, filed his lawsuit in the U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio against the city, several members of the city's administration and several of the city's police officers March 6, 2023.
In his suit, Green alleges he was wrongfully terminated as retaliation for his reporting of alleged misconduct of fellow officers to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
On March 8, Green submitted a complaint alleging his First Amendment rights were violated.
Green claims that his termination was a result of him engaging in constitutionally protected free speech when as a private citizen he made allegations of misconduct and criminal behavior committed by the other officers.
Green has filed 28 claims in his suit and seeks civil liability recovery from all the named defendants for alleged criminal violations for 25 of the claims. The remaining claims are in regard to alleged constitutional deprivations under the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment and a state law claim against the city alleging reckless hiring, training, supervision, discipline, staffing and retention.
The motion filed from the city says that for a number of these claims, Green did not identify the allegations as a basis for the claims.
"Balancing public interest in maintaining confidence in existing police operations and related judicial proceedings with the plaintiff's interest in filing his compliant, confirms need for the court to exercise its discretion to strike paragraphs 45, 252, 256 ,257, 258, 260, 262, and 263," the motion states. "Particularly so when the actual basis of the plaintiff's claims would not be altered."
The paragraphs the city's attorney Sarah J. Moore is requesting to be stricken include a variety of allegations against other officers and the city, such as: allegations of illicit behavior by a fellow officer who Green claims was being paid while he was not working, conducted improper search and seizures with false arrests and false prosecutions. Green also alleged that the officer failed to attend required K-9 training which could result in the dog being de-certified and jeopardize all his prior searches, arrests and prosecutions.
Green also alleges a second officer and the prosecutors failed to hand over materials in a certain trial that could call into question the convictions from that trial.
Green also notes in his complaint the alleged conduct of first officer within the context of his domestic or personal life, which the motion states Green lacks personal knowledge of and no standing to bring these claims since he was not present during the alleged events.
The city states in the motion that any reasonable person can conclude that these claims are intended to harass the first officer, who is named as a defendant in Green's suit.
The motion also says that the claims made by Green that motion is requesting be stricken demonstrate a clear and inappropriate attempt to impugn the integrity of defendant city police department personnel.
This motion is pending and waiting response.
kgarabrandt@mojonews.com