Deitz-Smith et al v. Shelby County Metropolitan Housing Authority et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION (DAYTON)
EVELYN DEITZ-SMITH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SHELBY COUNTY METROPOLITAN
HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 3:25-cv-00305
District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
ORDER
This matter is before the Court to consider the following recent filings by
Plaintiff(s):
1. 	“MOTION FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS BY U.S. MARSHALS
SERVICE” (Doc. No. 4);
2. 	“MOTION FOR ADA ACCOMMODATION” (Doc. No. 5);
3. 	“SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE AND UPDATED MASTER TIMELINE (Exhibits 39-42)”
(Doc. No. 8);
4. 	“PLAINTIFF’S LETTER OF INENT AND PERSONAL
STATEMENT OF GOOD FAITH” (Doc. No. 9); and
5. 	“PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF STATE COURT FILING AND
REQUEST FOR COORDINATION OF PROCEEDINGS” (Doc. No.
10).
Before addressing these filings, the undersigned notes the procedural posture of the case.
The case is in its early stages. The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to proceed in forma
pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, meaning that they did not have to pay the filing fees to
Case: 3:25-cv-00305-MJN-CHG Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/26/25 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
proceed. (Doc. No. 2.) However, the Court is required to screen Plaintiff’s Complaint
(Doc. No. 3) and dismiss any part of it that is frivolous or malicious, that fails to state a
claim on which relief can be granted, or that seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Complaint must be
screened before Defendants are served and before the case proceeds forward.
Plaintiffs’ recent filings are resolved as follows. First, Plaintiffs ask the Court to
order the United States Marshal Service (“USMS”) to serve the Complaint (as well as
their other initial filings) on Defendants. (Doc. No. 4.) They also ask to be relieved of the
obligation to serve the entire Complaint with its exhibits, because of its length. (Id. at
PageID 599 [noting it is over 200 pages].) The motion is DENIED at this time. If, after
screening the Complaint, the Court finds that the case should proceed in whole or in part,
the Court will then direct the USMS to serve a summons and full copy of the Complaint
on the appropriate Defendant(s). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 10(c) (“A copy of a written instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading is a part of
the pleading for all purposes.”). But Plaintiffs “must furnish the necessary copies to the
person who makes service.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1). See also Shine-Johnson v. Chambers-
Smith, No. 2:22-cv-3236, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 240316, at *2 (S.D. Ohio July 18, 2023)
(“Plaintiffs’ status as pro se litigants, even if they are proceeding in forma pauperis, does
not entitle them to free copies from the Court.”). Plaintiffs are responsible for serving
their other filings consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.
Second, Plaintiff Evelyn Deitz-Smith (“Evelyn”) asks that the Court accommodate
her disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). (Doc. No. 5.) Among
Case: 3:25-cv-00305-MJN-CHG Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/26/25 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
other things, Plaintiff appears to ask the Court to determine, at this early point, that
certain evidence is admissible in the case, and to bar Defendants from opposing its
admissibility. (Id. at PageID 642.) She further seeks “accessible participation” with
respect to court appearances and extended deadlines. (Id.) This motion is not signed by
either Plaintiff and for that reason the Clerk is DIRECTED to STRIKE it from the
docket. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. (See also Doc. No. 2 at PageID 330 [ordering Plaintiff Craig
Smith to personally sign the Complaint]; Doc. No. 6 at PageID 649 [reminding Plaintiffs
they must sign their filings].) Plaintiff may file specific motions seeking extensions of
time or to appear remotely as those situations arise, and may argue for or against the
admissibility of evidence at the appropriate time. At present, however, there are no
deadlines to extend and no appearances are required. The Court is currently considering
the Complaint and how the claims have been pled; the admissibility of evidence will be
addressed at a later time if the case proceeds.
Third and fourth, Plaintiff(s) provide a Supplemental Notice of Newly
Discovered Evidence and Updated Master Timeline (Doc. No. 8) and Evelyn submitted a
Letter of Intent and Personal Statement of Good Faith (Doc. No. 9). These are not filings
recognized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Clerk is therefore
DIRECTED to STRIKE them from the docket.
Fifth, Evelyn provides notice of a case pending against Plaintiffs in the Franklin
County, Ohio, Small Claims Court, “to ensure that the state proceedings do not interfere
with, prejudice, or create conflicting obligations in the federal RICO action now before
this Court.” (Doc. No. 10 at PageID 706.) This filing is arguably responsive to the
Case: 3:25-cv-00305-MJN-CHG Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/26/25 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
Court’s earlier Order Concerning Other Cases (Doc. No. 6) and so will not be stricken.
But Plaintiff’s request for “coordination of proceedings” is not well-taken. It appears that
Plaintiff seeks a stay of the small claims litigation until after this case is complete. That
request has correctly been directed to the small claims court. (See Doc. No 10 at PageID
708.) To the extent Plaintiff is asking this Court to stay the small claims litigation, her
request is DENIED.
As noted above, the next step in the case is for the Court to screen Plaintiff’s
Complaint. It is lengthy, with many claims, defendants, and exhibits. (Doc. No. 3 at
PageID 331 through Doc. No. 3-46 at PageID 680.) Plaintiffs need not, and in the
absence of extraordinary circumstances shall not, file any additional materials at
this time. Similarly, Defendants need not respond to the Complaint or other filings until
further order of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Caroline H. Gentry
Caroline H. Gentry
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00305-MJN-CHG Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/26/25 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>