In Stokes v. City Dogs Animal Control, (ND OH, May 12, 2026), an Ohio federal district court dismissed a pro se plaintiff's claim that his free exercise rights were infringed when his service dog was microchipped by animal control officers without his consent. When plaintiff's car broke down, he temporarily abandoned it by the side of the road with his dog inside it. Plaintiff was homeless at the time. Police came upon the car and called animal control officers to have them take custody of the dog. A Cleveland ordinance requires animal control officers who recover an abandoned dog to embed a microchip in the dog for future identification. They did so. Plaintiff sued seeking $10 million in damages, contending, among other things, that it violates his religious beliefs to have his dog microchipped. The court said in part:
“It is not within the judicial ken to question the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith, or the validity of particular litigants' interpretations of those creeds.”... Courts may not “presume to determine the place of a particular belief in a religion or the plausibility of a religious claim.”... Therefore, the Court takes seriously Plaintiff’s religious objection.
Still, even construing the record in favor of Mr. Stokes, he fails to state a claim for a violation of his Free Exercise rights under the First Amendment or retaliation against them. At the pleading stage, the record shows that Mr. Stokes objected to Defendant’s actions not for religious reasons, but for a series of other reasons that the Constitution does not protect. Therefore, the complaint fails to raise his right to relief on these grounds above the speculative level and fails to state a plausible claim for relief on these bases.
