PLINTON FAMILY SUES UA, SHERIFF

Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed, Federal Civil Suit Expected Today on
Behalf of Former Student

The parents of Charles Theodore Plinton are suing the University of
Akron and the Summit County Sheriff for the death of their son,
claiming he was denied his constitutional rights.

A wrongful death civil suit was filed Thursday against the university
and two former UA police officers in the Ohio Court of Claims in
Columbus, which handles civil lawsuits filed against the state and its
agencies.

A federal civil rights suit naming the university and Summit County is
expected to be filed in U.S. District Court in Akron this morning.

Charles Plinton was pursuing a master's degree at the University of
Akron when drug allegations in 2004 resulted in his suspension, even
though he had been acquitted by a trial jury.

He took his own life last December.

Akron attorney Robert Meeker, who represented Plinton in the drug
trafficking case, has joined civil rights lawyer Ed Gilbert to bring
the lawsuits. The federal suit seeks several million dollars in
punitive damages, attorney fees and other relief; the wrongful death
action does not specify how much money is sought.

Neither the university nor the county had seen the lawsuits Thursday
and their representatives declined comment.

"I feel like I'm going on a long journey and I don't know how it's
going to end," said Charles Plinton, the deceased student's father.

The elder Plinton knows that it's likely defendants will raise
alternative explanations for his son's suicide, including a police
report indicating that his son was having girlfriend problems and had
failed a promotional test for his job. His son also had spoken in the
past about attempting suicide.

His parents are ready for that.

"I feel that what was done to him was so wrong, I just had to go this
route," Plinton said.

The lawsuits also allege that the Summit County Drug Unit relied on a
false identification of Plinton as the suspect who sold marijuana to a
confidential informant.

That led to false police testimony to secure an indictment, and a
conspiracy to produce a false confession from Plinton a week before
trial, the suit says.

The result was a "sham hearing based on inappropriate evidence"
before a UA hearing board, according to the state lawsuit.

In a 3-2 vote, the UA board concluded Plinton was "responsible" for
"dealing drugs to a confidential informant." The decision came after
Plinton was acquitted on drug trafficking charges in Summit County
Common Pleas Court.

"The defendants' actions were so extreme and outrageous as to go
beyond all possible bounds of decency and was such that it can be
considered as utterly intolerable in a civilized community,"
according to the state suit.

The federal suit also alleges UA denied Plinton his constitutional
right to due process, specifically identifying the university's burden
of proof requirement in determining whether a student has violated the
conduct code.

Out of 12 Ohio universities surveyed by UA, only UA used the
"substantial" burden. Most use the higher standard of "more likely
than not."

An independent commission formed in response to the Plinton case has
recommended the university adopt an even higher standard of "clear
and convincing" evidence in serious cases.

"Although I believe the recommendations are a step in the right
direction, I remain concerned," Meeker said.

Meeker, who stood by Plinton during his hearing, believes the process
was unfair because he wasn't allowed to speak for Plinton. Also, a
police officer was allowed to summarize the testimony of a
confidential informant who was not present.

Akron City Council president Marco Sommerville, who brought the
Plinton story to public attention at the last city council meeting of
2005, was disappointed with the commission also.

"The commission probably did what they were asked to do, but it
didn't go far enough," he said. "The verdict is still out on the
University of Akron in the handling of the Charles Plinton case, as
far as I'm concerned."