On October 16, 2015 a
Complaint,Petition
was filed
involving a dispute between
Davis, Michael,
and
Akron Housing Division,
for ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
in the District Court of Summit County.
Preview
OANIE 1
MEL M ARERGeT OF COMMON PLEAS
2018 OCT 16 SRRMBIITQCOUNTY, OHIO
MICHAEL Daya UMMIT COUNTY ) CASE NO: AN RIGALL JONES
ERK ;
swwvanporave O° SOURTS ECEIVE l}
a0i5 10 4894
AKRON OHIO 44305 ) JUDGE:
OCT 1 6 2015
Plaintiff, )
CUSTOMER SERVICE
-VS- ) HOUSING DIVISION
CITY OF AKRON ) COMPLAINT/APPEAL
166 SOUTH HIGH STREET ) HOUSING BOARD’S DECISION
Defendant, )
Now comes Michael Davis, Pro Se, and respectfully and humbly moves this Honorable
Court for a favorable decision, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 2505 and 2506, in appealing the City of
Akron Housing Board’s decision to raze his property, located at 1279 Newton Akron Ohio, # 67-23571,
because to do so, violates State Law Section 3707.01. Further, to allow this Condemnation Proceeding to
go forward, which is scheduled sometime this month, would be tantamount to taking his property, under
Eminent Domain without just compensation, This clearly would be a violation of Federal Constitution
Law, 14" Amendment, and Ohio Constitution Law, Article XVIII Section Three (3).
Plaintiff contends that he has complied with the conditions imposed upon him, with respect
to making the necessary repairs, to bring his property up to standard, and in line with building code
requirements. Further, he maintains that the City of Akron Housing Inspector hasn’t come back out to
inspect the property to discover that the required repairs have been addressed. So, to allow the scheduled
demolition of the subject property would clearly be in violation of Chapter 3791 and 3781.06 in this state.
Thus, the defendant City of Akron herein, is no longer qualified to issued and carry out demolition orders
according to law. Canton v State, 95 Ohio St 3d 149; also, the principle enunciated in Larry Modic vs.
City of Akron is applicable to this instant situation.
Wherefore, plaintiff Michael Davis Pro Se respectfully prays that this Honorable Court will
render a favorable judgment, as it relates to him, in light of the foregoing, as justice, fairness, equity, and
common sense, requires according to law.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michael Davis Pro SeCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, hereby certify that a correct copy of this Complaint was sent to the City of Akron, and Akron Housing
Inspector, Jodi Forester, 166 and 146 South High Street, Akron Ohio 44308, by regular U.S. Mail, this__
day of October 2015 postage pre-paid,
Atcha) Devs
Michael Davis Pro Se
Preview
OANIE 1 MEL M ARERGeT OF COMMON PLEAS 2018 OCT 16 SRRMBIITQCOUNTY, OHIO MICHAEL Daya UMMIT COUNTY ) CASE NO: AN RIGALL JONES ERK ; swwvanporave O° SOURTS ECEIVE l} a0i5 10 4894 AKRON OHIO 44305 ) JUDGE: OCT 1 6 2015 Plaintiff, ) CUSTOMER SERVICE -VS- ) HOUSING DIVISION CITY OF AKRON ) COMPLAINT/APPEAL 166 SOUTH HIGH STREET ) HOUSING BOARD’S DECISION Defendant, ) Now comes Michael Davis, Pro Se, and respectfully and humbly moves this Honorable Court for a favorable decision, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 2505 and 2506, in appealing the City of Akron Housing Board’s decision to raze his property, located at 1279 Newton Akron Ohio, # 67-23571, because to do so, violates State Law Section 3707.01. Further, to allow this Condemnation Proceeding to go forward, which is scheduled sometime this month, would be tantamount to taking his property, under Eminent Domain without just compensation, This clearly would be a violation of Federal Constitution Law, 14" Amendment, and Ohio Constitution Law, Article XVIII Section Three (3). Plaintiff contends that he has complied with the conditions imposed upon him, with respect to making the necessary repairs, to bring his property up to standard, and in line with building code requirements. Further, he maintains that the City of Akron Housing Inspector hasn’t come back out to inspect the property to discover that the required repairs have been addressed. So, to allow the scheduled demolition of the subject property would clearly be in violation of Chapter 3791 and 3781.06 in this state. Thus, the defendant City of Akron herein, is no longer qualified to issued and carry out demolition orders according to law. Canton v State, 95 Ohio St 3d 149; also, the principle enunciated in Larry Modic vs. City of Akron is applicable to this instant situation. Wherefore, plaintiff Michael Davis Pro Se respectfully prays that this Honorable Court will render a favorable judgment, as it relates to him, in light of the foregoing, as justice, fairness, equity, and common sense, requires according to law. Respectfully Submitted, Michael Davis Pro SeCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, hereby certify that a correct copy of this Complaint was sent to the City of Akron, and Akron Housing Inspector, Jodi Forester, 166 and 146 South High Street, Akron Ohio 44308, by regular U.S. Mail, this__ day of October 2015 postage pre-paid, Atcha) Devs Michael Davis Pro Se