Fostoria Woman Files Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit Against City, Judge, Prosecutor, Police Officers, and Ohio Attorney General

A Fostoria woman has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging a series of constitutional violations arising from a series of municipal traffic cases handled in the Tiffin-Fostoria Municipal Court in 2025.​

The Plaintiff and Defendants

Rebecca Cook, a Fostoria resident appearing pro se — meaning she is representing herself without an attorney — filed the complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that allows individuals to sue government officials for violations of their constitutional rights.​

The defendants named in the complaint are a broad list of Fostoria-area officials, including:

• City of Fostoria

• Judge Rhonda Lynn Best of the Tiffin-Fostoria Municipal Court

• Prosecutor Barbara Dibble

• Court Clerks Jennifer McClure and “Heather” (last name refused)

• Fostoria Police Officers Cole Noftz, Tim Ink, and Brandon Bell

• Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost​

Cook has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning she is asking the court to waive filing fees due to financial hardship, and has requested that the U.S. Marshals Service serve the defendants on her behalf.​

What the Lawsuit Alleges

The complaint centers on five traffic-related cases adjudicated against Cook in the Tiffin-Fostoria Municipal Court on April 8, 2025 (case numbers TRD 240341, TRD 2403704A-B, TRD 2402451, and TRD 2403040). Cook argues that everything that happened in those cases — and everything that followed — was legally void from the start.​

1. Void Judgments and No Jurisdiction

Cook’s central argument is that the municipal court never established lawful jurisdiction over her. She says she repeatedly demanded that the court identify a lawfully injured party or complaining witness, and that no one ever provided one. She argues that because jurisdiction was never properly established and confirmed on the record, all judgments against her are void ab initio — legally void from the beginning.​

2. Forced Public Defender

Cook alleges she was forced to accept a public defender against her will, in violation of her Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. She argues that her right to represent herself was never properly waived and that any such waiver was made under coercion and the threat of incarceration, making it legally invalid.​

3. Officials Failed to Prove Their Authority

In a notable portion of the complaint, Cook alleges she requested proof of lawful authority from the judge and prosecutor — including valid oaths of office, law licenses, and required bonds. She argues that the documents provided were deficient, lacking proper notarization, official seals, and certification, and that the officials therefore “proceeded under color of state law without lawful authority.”​

4. Illegal Probation

Cook was placed on reporting probation as a result of the traffic matters. She argues that because the underlying judgments are void, the probation itself is void — and that continued enforcement of her probation conditions constitutes an unlawful deprivation of liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment.​

5. Attorney General Collection Efforts

Cook also names Attorney General Dave Yost, alleging that the state sent her demands for payment of fines and fees rooted in what she calls void judgments. She argues this constitutes enforcement of unconstitutional obligations and an illegal attempt to seize her property without due process.​

Claims Filed

The complaint raises seven formal counts against the defendants:

• Count I — Due Process Violation (14th Amendment, § 1983)

• Count II — Forced Public Defender / Right to Self-Representation (6th & 14th Amendments)

• Count III — Lack of Lawful Authority (14th Amendment)

• Count IV — Illegal Probation / Deprivation of Liberty

• Count V — Municipal Liability under Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services, holding the City of Fostoria responsible for unconstitutional policies, customs, and failures to train

• Count VI — Improper Collection by the State Attorney General

• Count VII — Declaratory and Injunctive Relief​

What Cook Is Asking For

Cook’s requested relief is sweeping. She is asking the federal court to:​

• Declare all municipal court judgments void

• Permanently enjoin enforcement of her probation and all related fines

• Order defendants to produce valid oaths, licenses, and bond records for the judge and prosecutor

• Award compensatory damages against non-immune defendants

• Grant a jury trial on all applicable claims​

Context and Legal Background

The complaint incorporates legal theories and language associated with the sovereign citizen and UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) rights reservation movements — Cook styles her name as “rebecca-ann:cook UCC 1-308/All rights reserved without prejudice” throughout the document. Courts have historically been skeptical of many such arguments, particularly claims that government officials must prove the validity of their oaths or bonds before a court may exercise jurisdiction, or that traffic enforcement requires a named private complaining witness.​

That said, the core civil rights framework — 42 U.S.C. § 1983, due process, and the right to self-representation — are well-established areas of federal law, and federal courts are required to liberally construe pro se complaints before dismissing them. The case has not yet been assigned a case number or judge, meaning it has not yet been formally accepted by the court.​

None of the named defendants have responded to the complaint, and no court has made any finding on the merits of Cook’s allegations. All parties named in the lawsuit are presumed to have acted lawfully unless and until a court determines otherwise.