Case: 1:19-cv-02650-CAB Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/19 1 of 7. PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
TAMMIE SEBASTIAN,
6814 Revere Drive
Parma Heights, Ohio 44130
Plaintiff,
vs.
PARMA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
5311 Longwood Avenue
Parma, Ohio 44134
and
PARMA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD OF EDUCATION,
5311 Longwood Avenue
Parma, Ohio 44134
and
AUDREY HOLTZMAN,
2305 Champion Trail
Twinsburg, Ohio 44087
and
CHARLES SMIALEK,
16824 Holbrook Road
Shaker Heights, Ohio 44120
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO.:
JUDGE

COMPLAINT
Jury Demand Endorsed Hereon

Now comes Plaintiff Tammie Sebastian, by and through undersigned counsel, and for her
Complaint against Defendants Parma City School District, Parma City School District Board of
Education, Audrey Holtzman, and Charles Smialek, states the following:

 Case: 1:19-cv-02650-CAB Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/19 2 of 7. PageID #: 2

PARTIES
1.

Plaintiff Tammie Sebastian is an Ohio resident, residing at 6814 Revere Drive, Parma

Heights, Ohio 44130 and a parent of a child attending school in the Parma City School District.
2.

Defendant Parma City School District (hereinafter “the District”) is a political subdivision

of the State of Ohio and has its principal place of business at 5311 Longwood Avenue, Parma,
Ohio 44134.
3.

Defendant Parma City School District Board of Education (the “Board”), with its principal

place of business located at 5311 Longwood Avenue, Parma, Ohio 44134, is a public entity which,
acting under color of law, is responsible for the formulation and implementation of all official
governmental laws, policies, regulations and procedures in effect for the District.
4.

Defendant Audrey Holtzman, who is being sued in her official capacity only, is the

District’s Administrative Specialist for Enrollment and Recruitment and resides at 2305 Champion
Trail, Twinsburg, Ohio 44087.
5.

Defendant Charles Smialek, who is being sued in his official capacity only, is the District’s

Superintendent and resides at 16824 Holbrook Road, Shaker Heights, Ohio 44120.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6.

Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 28 U.S.C. §§2201-

2202.
7.

Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) as the events that gave

rise to this action occurred in Cuyahoga County, State of Ohio, which lies within the jurisdictional
boundaries of the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
8.

Plaintiff operates a Twitter account under the handle @matmat71.

2

 Case: 1:19-cv-02650-CAB Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/19 3 of 7. PageID #: 3

9.

Defendant Holtzman operates a Twitter account under the handle @audrey_holtzman.

10.

Twitter is a social media platform that allows its users, through a user’s account handle, to

publish short messages (known as “tweets”) limited to 240 characters; to “retweet” (i.e., republish)
or reply to other users’ messages; and to interact with other users in relation to those tweets.
11.

A Twitter user’s webpage shows all tweets made by the user and is known as a “timeline.”

12.

A user’s most recent tweets appear at the top of the timeline.

13.

A user’s tweets can include photographs, videos, and links.

14.

Twitter’s default setting makes a user’s timeline accessible to anyone with internet access,

even individuals who do not have a Twitter account.
15.

Twitter users can “follow” (i.e. subscribe to) other users.

16.

A follower can see all tweets and retweets of the Twitter accounts that they follow.

17.

The tweets and retweets of the accounts being followed are shown on the user’s home page

and are known as a “feed.”
18.

Twitter users can also reply to other users who reply to a tweet or retweet.

19.

The replies to other users are known as a “thread.”

20.

Twitters users can also “favorite” or “like” tweets from other users by clicking on a heart

icon that appears below the tweet.
21.

Twitter users can “mention” or “tweet at” other users by including the other user’s account

handle in a tweet.
22.

When a Twitter user is mentioned in a tweet, that user receives a “notification” of that

mention.
23.

Twitter users also receive notifications when a tweet of theirs is retweeted.

3

 Case: 1:19-cv-02650-CAB Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/19 4 of 7. PageID #: 4

24.

If a Twitter user wishes to change the default public setting regarding their Twitter page,

they can make their tweets “protected.”
25.

If a Twitter user wishes to view protected tweets, they must request access from the user

who has protected his tweets.
26.

Protected tweets are only seen by the user and any approved followers.

27.

A Twitter account that is not protected can still prohibit other users from seeing their tweets

by “blocking” that user.
28.

It is the Twitter user herself that makes the decision whether to block another user.

29.

A blocked user cannot interact with the Twitter user who engaged the blocking feature.

30.

A blocked user cannot see, reply to, or retweet the Twitter user who engaged the blocking

feature.
31.

A blocked user cannot view the list of followers or followed accounts of the Twitter user

who engaged the blocking feature.
32.

The Twitter user who engaged the blocking feature will not receive any notifications if the

blocked user mentions them.
33.

The Twitter use who engaged the blocking feature will not see any tweets posted by the

blocked user.
34.

If the blocked user attempts to follow the blocking user, or to access the Twitter page from

which the user is blocked, the blocked user will see a message indicating that the other user has
blocked her from following the account and viewing the tweets associated with the account.
35.

Defendant Holtzman established the Twitter account @audrey_holtzman in July 2011.

4

 Case: 1:19-cv-02650-CAB Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/19 5 of 7. PageID #: 5

36.

Upon information and belief, upon being hired by the Parma City School District in July

2019, Defendant Holtzman began to use her account as an instrument of her job and used it as a
channel for communicating with the public about the District and the Board.
37.

Through Defendant Holtzman’s use of the account, it has become a forum for news and

information about the District and the Board.
38.

Defendant Holtzman’s account is accessible to the public at large without regard to any

limiting criteria.
39.

Defendant Holtzman has not “protected” her tweets.

40.

Anyone who wants to follow Defendant Holtzman’s account may do so.

41.

The only users who cannot follow @audrey_holtzman are those whom Defendant

Holtzman has blocked.
42.

Plaintiff is a Twitter user, with the handle @matmat71, who has been blocked by Defendant

Holtzman and the remaining Defendants from the @audrey_holtzman account.
43.

Defendant Smialek told Plaintiff on September 9, 2019, that Defendant Holtzman blocked

Plaintiff from the @audrey_holtzman account at the directive of Defendant Smialek.
44.

Defendants’ blocking of Plaintiff from the @audrey_holtzman account prevents and/or

impedes Plaintiff from viewing Defendant Holtzman’s tweets about the District and the Board;
from replying to those tweets; from viewing the comment threads associated with those tweets;
and from participating in the comment threads.
45.

Plaintiff was blocked from the @audrey_holtzman account because she has been a

longtime critic and watchdog of the District and the Board.
46.

Defendants’ viewpoint-based blocking of Plaintiff from the @audrey_holtzman account

infringes on Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights.

5

 Case: 1:19-cv-02650-CAB Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/19 6 of 7. PageID #: 6

47.

Defendants’ viewpoint-based blocking of Plaintiff from the @audrey_holtzman account

imposes an unconstitutional restriction on her participation in a designated public forum.
48.

Defendants’ viewpoint-based blocking of Plaintiff from the @audrey_holtzman account

imposes an unconstitutional restriction on her access to statements that Defendants are otherwise
making to the general public.
49.

Defendants’ viewpoint-based blocking of Plaintiff from the @audrey_holtzman account

imposes an unconstitutional restriction on Plaintiff’s right to petition the government for redress
of grievances.
COUNT I
Violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
50.

Plaintiff repeats and alleges paragraphs 1 through 49 as though fully set forth herein.

51.

Defendants’ blocking of Plaintiff from the @audrey_holtzman account violates the First

Amendment because it imposes a view-point based restriction on Plaintiff’s participation in a
public forum.
52.

Defendants’ blocking of Plaintiff from the @audrey_holtzman account violates the First

Amendment because it imposes a view-point based restriction on Plaintiff’s access to official
statements of the District and the Board that Defendants otherwise make available to the general
public.
53.

Defendants’ blocking of Plaintiff from the @audrey_holtzman account violates the First

Amendment because it imposes a view-point based restriction on Plaintiff’s ability to petition the
government for redress of grievances.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants accordingly:

6

 Case: 1:19-cv-02650-CAB Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/13/19 7 of 7. PageID #: 7

A.)

Declare Defendants’ viewpoint-based blocking of Plaintiff from the @audrey_holtzman

account to be unconstitutional;
B.)

Enter an injunction requiring Defendants to unblock Plaintiff from the @audrey_holtzman

account and prohibiting Defendants from blocking Plaintiff or others from the account on the basis
of viewpoint;
C.)

Award Plaintiff her costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§2412; and
D).

For any other relief that the Court deems just and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Matthew B. Abens
MATTHEW B. ABENS (0075308)
DAVID L. HARVEY III (0080918)
JASON T. HARTZELL (0092458)
Harvey Abens Iosue Co., LPA
3404 Lorain Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Phone: (216) 651-0256
Fax: (216) 651-1131
mbabens@harvlaw.com
dvdharv@harvlaw.com
jhartzell@harvlaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiff

7