govinfo:USCOURTS-ohsd-1_25-cv-00899-0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 
WESTERN DIVISION 
 
JEANETTA ANDERSON, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
SHERIFF CHARMAINE MCGUFFEY, 
et al., 
Defendants. 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
 

Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins 
 
 
 
OPINION AND ORDER 
 
In this action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff, pro se, Jeanetta Anderson, 
(“Plaintiff” or “Anderson”) alleges that her former employer, the Hamilton County Sheriff’s 
Office, improperly accessed her sealed misdemeanor conviction and retaliated against her 
eventually leading to her firing. Defendants Hamilton County , Ohio Sheriff Charmaine 
McGuffey and the Board of Commissioners of the county are now before the Court seeking 
to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the Motion to 
Dismiss (Doc. 10) and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 5) WITH PREJUDICE. 
I. BACKGROUND 
More than twenty years ago, Anderson had a misdemeanor conviction sealed under 
Ohio law. Doc. 5, PageID 22. In her Complaint, Anderson alleges that the Hamilton County 
Sheriff’s Office “accessed, reviewed, and used [the misdemeanor record] against her” in 
relation to her employment with that office and that she experienced retaliation and adverse 
treatment as a result . Id. Looking to avenge her grievances against her former employer, 
Anderson filed a lawsuit against the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office in the Hamilton 
Case: 1:25-cv-00899-JPH-KLL Doc #: 17 Filed: 06/08/26 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
 
2 
 
County Court of Common Pleas, claiming to have been retaliated against in violation of Ohio 
Revised Code § 2953.3 4(B). Her original state-court action was dismissed . The judge 
presiding in the first state court action dismissed the case after reasoning that “R.C. 
2953.32(A)(6) permits the inspection of sealed records by ‘any law enforcement agency or any 
authorized employee of a law enforcement agency . . . as part of a background investigation 
of a person who applies for employment with the agency or with the department.” Def’s. Ex. 
1, Doc. 10-1, PageID 47. Not to be deterred, Plaintiff then filed a second action in the same 
state court. The new judge on the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas assigned to the 
second action arrived at the same decision as the first finding that the second case was, 
“basically a refiling of the original lawsuit filed by Plaintiff.” Def’s. Ex. 2, Doc. 10-2, PageID 
50. The second action was therefore dismissed with prejudice under the doctrine of res 
judicata. Id. 
By bringing this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff has invoked federal court 
jurisdiction. However, because the state court case s are predicated on the same set of facts, 
Defendants seek dismissal of the current case under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure offering three reasons: (1) Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed with prejudice in 
Hamilton County and are thus barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, (2) Defendants 
were authorized to review Plaintiff’s criminal record in accordance with state law , and (3) 
Plaintiff fails to state any constitutional claim. Doc. 10 , PageID 39 . Plaintiff opposes 
Defendants’ motion. Doc. 13. With receipt of Defendants’ reply, this matter became ripe for 
adjudication. Doc. 15. 
 
 
Case: 1:25-cv-00899-JPH-KLL Doc #: 17 Filed: 06/08/26 Page: 2 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
 
3 
 
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 
A party may move to dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief 
can be granted” under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 
12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must include “only enough facts to state 
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 
(2007). This, however, requires “more than labels and conclusions [or] a formulaic recitation 
of the elements of a cause of action,” and the “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a 
right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555. “A claim has facial plausibility when the 
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 
Indeed, under the plausibility standard set forth in Twombly and Iqbal, courts play an 
important gatekeeper role, ensuring that claims meet a plausibility threshold before 
defendants are subjected to the potential rigors (and costs) of the discovery process. 
“Discovery, after all, is not designed as a method by which a plaintiff discovers whether he 
has a claim, but rather a process for discovering evidence to substantiate plausibly -stated 
claims.” Green v. Mason, 504 F. Supp. 3d 813, 827 (S.D. Ohio 2020). 
In deciding a motion to dismiss, the district court must “construe the complaint in the 
light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept its allegations as true, and draw all reasonable 
inferences in favor of the plaintiff. ” Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007). 
In doing so, the district court “need not accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted 
factual inferences.” Gregory v. Shelby County, 220 F.3d 433, 446 (6th Cir. 2000). 
 
 
Case: 1:25-cv-00899-JPH-KLL Doc #: 17 Filed: 06/08/26 Page: 3 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
 
4 
 
III. LAW AND ANALYSIS 
A. Res judicata bars Plaintiff’s claims. 
Defendants seek to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 
12(b)(6), claiming, in part, that Anderson’s current federal lawsuit (her third against related 
or similarly situated d efendants) is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. Anderson 
does not mention either of her prior cases in her Complaint, but she does cite to at least one 
of those cases in an exhibit attached to her Complaint. See Pl.’s Ex. A, Doc. 5, PageID 24. 1 
Nonetheless, Defendants refer to Anderson’s state-court lawsuits and the documents available 
on the public docket. “On a motion to dismiss, a court considering an affirmative defense of 
res judicata may take judicial notice of public records including judicial proceedings.” Darden 
v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, No. 3:22-cv-264, 2023 WL 3764272, at *5 (S.D. Ohio June 
1, 2023) . The documents provided by Defendants are public records of Plaintiff’s prior 
proceedings, so the Court can and will consider those here. Newman v. Univ. of Dayton , No. 
3:17-cv-179, 2017 WL 4919225, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 21, 2017). 
As stated, Defendants assert that res judicata bars Plaintiff’s claims. Res judicata 
applies when the following elements are established: “(1) a final decision on the merits by a 
court of competent jurisdiction; (2) . . . the same parties or their privies; (3) an issue [that] was 
litigated or which [c]ould have been litigated in the prior action; and (4) an identity of the 
 
1 Based on the contents of Plaintiff’s filings, including the verbiage used in Ex. A, the Court suspects that 
Plaintiff may have used generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) in preparing her filings in this case. See, e.g., 
Pl.’s Ex. A, Doc. 5, PageID 24 (“The Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas dismissed your state case 
(Case No. A-2504768) under Civ. R. 12(B)(6) . . . This ruling ONLY affects your state claims. It does NOT 
prevent you from pursuing federal constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Those federal claims were 
never litigated and are not barred. You may proceed in federal court.”). If she has in fact used generative AI, 
Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s Standing Order Governing Use of Generative AI , which 
requires disclosure by a separate declaration if any party, including a self -represented litigant like Plaintiff, 
uses generative AI to generate any portion of a motion, brief, pleading, or other filing . 
Case: 1:25-cv-00899-JPH-KLL Doc #: 17 Filed: 06/08/26 Page: 4 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
 
5 
 
causes of action.” Hogan v. Jacobson, 823 F.3d 872, 884 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Bragg v. Flint 
Bd. of Educ., 570 F.3d 775, 776 (6th Cir. 2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 
1. Final decision on the merits 
Under the first element, Defendants must show that there has been a final decision on 
the merits. Hogan, 823 F.3d at 884. Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendants have satisfied 
this threshold element. Dismissal of Plaintiff’s original state court complaint with prejudice 
operates as a final decision on the merits , so this element is satisfied . Manohar v. Massillon 
Community Hosp., 122 Ohio App. 3d 715, 719 (5th Dist. 1997) (“Under Ohio law, a dismissal 
with prejudice by court order is a dismissal on the merits.”) (citation omitted). 
2. Same parties or privies 
The second element is also satisfied. Under Ohio law, “in order for the principle of res 
judicata to be applicable, the parties to the subsequent action must be identical to those of the 
former action or be in privity with them.” Johnson’s Island, Inc. v. Bd. of Tp. Trs. of Danbury Tp., 
69 Ohio St. 2d 241, 244 (1982). Plaintiff brought her original state court action against the 
Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office. Here, Plaintiff asserts claims against closely-related parties: 
the Hamilton County Board of Commissioners (for its role in overseeing the Hamilton 
County Sheriff’s Office and its training policies ) and Hamilton County Sheriff Charmaine 
McGuffey (in her official capacity). Doc. 5, PageID 22. Privity exists between these parties . 
See Thompson v. Wing, 70 Ohio St.3d 176, 184 (1994) (“As a general matter, privity ‘is merely 
a word used to say that the relationship between the one who is a party on the record and 
another is close enough to include that other within the res judicata.’”) (citation omitted). 
 
 
Case: 1:25-cv-00899-JPH-KLL Doc #: 17 Filed: 06/08/26 Page: 5 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
 
6 
 
3. Issue that was or could have been litigated and identity of causes of action 
The third and fourth elements remain for consideration, and the Court will address 
them together. The third element requires “an issue in the subsequent action which was 
litigated or which should have been litigated in the prior action, ” and the fourth element 
demands “an identity of the causes of action.” Rawe v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 462 F.3d 521, 
528 (6th Cir. 2006) . Summarizing, the fourth element—identity of the causes of action —
requires “an identity of the facts creating the right of action and of the evidence necessary to 
sustain each action. ” Westwood Chem. Co. v. Kulick , 656 F.2d 1224, 1227 (6th Cir. 1981). 
“Where the two causes of action arise from the ‘same transaction, or series of transactions, ’ 
both causes should be litigated in the first action.” Hivner v. Active Elec., Inc., 878 F. Supp. 2d 
897, 904 (S.D. Ohio 2012) (quoting Rawe, 462 F.3d at 529). 
The claims asserted in the federal case currently under review by this Court satisfy the 
third and fourth elements. Taken as true, all the facts asserted in Anderson’s current federal 
Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants (each of whom are in privity with the 
defendants identified in her prior state court cases), i.e., that the Hamilton County Sheriff’s 
Office improperly gained access to her sealed misdemeanor conviction and retaliated against 
her during her employment with that office , arise from the “same transaction, or series of 
transactions,” Rawe, 462 F.3d at 529, and could or should have been litigated by Plaintiff in 
the original state-court action she filed. In an effort to overcome res judicata, Plaintiff explains 
that unlike the state -court action that “adjudicated statutory authority under Ohio 
expungement law,” this case encompasses “violations of procedural due process and federally 
protected liberty interests under § 1983.” Doc. 13, PageID 69. The res judicata inquiry, 
however, turns on whether Plaintiff should have litigated her federal constitutional claims in 
Case: 1:25-cv-00899-JPH-KLL Doc #: 17 Filed: 06/08/26 Page: 6 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
 
7 
 
her prior action. The answer here is yes. Grey v. Morris, No. 95-1862, 1996 WL 494996, at *3 
(6th Cir. Aug. 29, 1996) (citing Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 139 (1988) (“[S]tate courts may 
hear constitutional claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”); Rodefer v. McCarthy, 2015-Ohio-
3052, ¶ 22 (2d Dist.) (explaining that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over § 1983 
claims); Moore v. Hiram Twp. , 988 F.3d 353, 361 (6th Cir. 2021) (“ Moore’s procedural due 
process, substantive due process, and equal protection claims each stem from the same 
occurrence . . . that was litigated in the state-court action, and thus could have been litigated 
at that time.”). To restate the law, even after accepting all the facts alleged in the Complaint 
as true, and drawing all inferences in her favor, it becomes inescapable that Plaintiff could—
and should—have brought her federal constitutional claims in her state court proceeding, but 
she failed to do so . See Mitchell v. Chapman , 343 F.3d 811, 824 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting 
Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981)) (“The central purpose of claim 
preclusion is to prevent the ‘relitigating of issues that were or could have been raised in [a 
prior] action.’”); J.Z.G. Resources v. Shelby Ins. Co. , 84 F.3d 211, 214 (6th Cir. 1996) (“ Claim 
preclusion applies not only to bar the parties from relitigating issues that were actually litigated 
but also to bar them from relitigating issues that could have been raised in an earlier action.”). 
Thus, the third and fourth factors of res judicata are also met in this case. 
Because all four factors are met, Plaintiff’s claims are subject to dismissal on the basis 
of res judicata. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons stated, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) 
and DISMISSES the Complaint (Doc. 5) WITH PREJUDICE. The Court certifies that an 
appeal of this Order would lack an arguable basis in law or in fact and thus would not be 
Case: 1:25-cv-00899-JPH-KLL Doc #: 17 Filed: 06/08/26 Page: 7 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
 
8 
 
taken in good faith. The Court accordingly DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma 
pauperis. In accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5), Plaintiff remains free to file a motion 
for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. 
Callihan v. Schneider , 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999). The Court ORDERS the clerk to 
ENTER JUDGMENT and TERMINATE this matter from the docket. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
June 8, 2026 
 Jeffery P. Hopkins 
 United States District Judge 
 
Case: 1:25-cv-00899-JPH-KLL Doc #: 17 Filed: 06/08/26 Page: 8 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight