Doe v. Board of Education of Fairland Local School District

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

JOHN DOE, :

:

Plaintiff, : Case No. 1:22-cv-44

:

vs. : Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins

:

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF

:

FAIRLAND LOCAL SCHOOL

:

DISTRICT, et al.,

:

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff John Doe has filed this action pseudonymously, seeking to hold the Fairland

Local School District Board of Education (“FLSD”) and Fairland High School (“FHS”)

Principal Troy Glenn Dillon accountable for sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of a teacher

while a student at FHS. Compl., Doc. 1. Defendants move to dismiss on the basis of claim

preclusion (res judicata). Doc. 10. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) and DISMISSES Doe’s Complaint (Doc. 1) WITH

PREJUDICE.

I. BACKGROUND

John Doe is a graduate of FHS. Doc. 1, ¶ 1. While a student at FHS, Doe took classes

taught by Amy Lugones (n/k/a Adkins), the new Spanish language teacher. Id. at ¶ 8. Before

joining FHS, Lugones had previously taught at Wayne County and Spring Valley High

Schools in West Virginia. Id. There, Lugones had allegedly engaged in sexual grooming and

exploitation of minor students. Id. at ¶ 9. FHS hired her nonetheless. Id. at ¶ 10. During the

2017-18 school year at FHS, Lugones began sexually grooming John Doe, then aged just 15

years old. Id. at ¶ 12. By April 2018, the relationship culminated in sexual intercourse. Id. at

¶ 13. Within days of the encounter, Lugones had “threatened” Doe, who later became “fearful

of adverse ramifications for his perceived fault in the exploitation.” Id. at ¶ 14.

On March 17, 2020, Doe’s mother1 filed suit against Lugones, Dillon, and FLSD in

the Lawrence County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas. See Doe v. Lugones, Lawrence Cnty.

C.P. No. 20OC000216.2 The complaint asserted six claims against the three defendants,

including: Civil Assault and Battery; Negligent Hiring, Retention, Training, and Supervision;

Negligent Supervision of Student Doe; Negligence of Defendant Dillon; Negligence Per Se;

and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. See Doc 10-1. Dillon and FLSD filed a

motion to dismiss Mother Doe’s complaint, asserting that they were immune under Ohio’s

statutory immunity for political subdivisions. See Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.01 et seq. The

Common Pleas Court denied the motion. See Doe (J. Entry filed Aug. 7, 2020). Dillon and

FLSD appealed. Id. (Notice of Appeal filed Sept. 1, 2020).

In a fifty-five-page decision, the Fourth District Court of Appeals concluded that

Dillon and FLSD were immune from Mother Doe’s claims, reasoning that no exception to

Ohio’s political subdivision immunity statute applied. Student Doe v. Adkins, 2021-Ohio-3389,

¶ 40 (4th Dist.). The Court of Appeals reversed the Court of Common Pleas’ decision on the

motion to dismiss and remanded the case for final entry of judgment. Id. at ¶ 103. The Court

1 Doe’s mother proceeded as the then-minor Doe’s parent and next friend. See Ohio Civ. R. 17(B).

2 A district court may take notice of judicial proceedings on a motion to dismiss without converting the motion

to one for summary judgment. Winget v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 537 F.3d 565, 576 (6th Cir. 2008)

(explaining that judicial notice may be taken “not for the truth of the facts recited [in a judicial opinion], but

for the existence of the opinion, which is not subject to reasonable dispute over its authenticity”).

of Common Pleas complied, granting the motion and entering judgment in favor of Dillon

and FLSD. Doc 10-2. See also Doe (J. Entry filed Sept. 28, 2021).

Four months later, on January 23, 2022, Doe (no longer of minor age) filed the instant

action. Doc. 1. He now asserts claims under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972

and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint, arguing Doe’s new

claims are barred by claim preclusion. Doc. 10. The motion is fully briefed and ripe for

adjudication.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Defendants seek to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule

12(b)(6).3 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

interference 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.

3 Defendants also argued that the Complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because

Doe is not named in the pleadings. (Doc. 10 (citing Rule 12(b)(1)).) This Court has since granted Doe’s motion

to proceed anonymously. Defendants’ argument under Rule 12(b)(1) is now moot.

“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).

III. LAW AND ANALYSIS

In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants argue that Doe’s claims are barred by claim

preclusion (which they refer to as res judicata).4 Doc. 10, PageID 27. This Court agrees. Under

the doctrine of res judicata, state court judgments are given the same preclusive effect in federal

court as they would have received in the courts of the rendering state. Hapgood v. City of

Warren, 127 F.3d 490, 493 (6th Cir. 1997) (further citation omitted). Federal courts thus look

to state law to determine whether a state would give any particular judgment preclusive effect.

Id. (citing Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75 (1984)).

Looking to Ohio law, this Court notes that “the doctrine of res judicata consists of the

two related concepts of claim preclusion . . . and issue preclusion[.]” Doe ex rel. Doe v. Jackson

Local Schs. Sch. Dist., 422 F. App’x 497, 500 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting O’Nesti v. DeBartolo Realty

Corp., 2007-Ohio-1102, ¶ 6). Claim preclusion “prevents subsequent actions, by the same

4 Defendants also separately move to dismiss the Complaint by arguing that the Court lacks jurisdiction over

Plaintiff because he proceeded pseudonymously without leave of court. See Doc. 10, PageID 25–27. The Court

declines to visit this issue as the Court finds it sufficient only to entertain Defendants’ arguments under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)—that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id. at PageID 27.

parties or their privies, based upon any claim arising out of a transaction that was the subject

matter of a previous action.” Doe ex rel. Doe, 422 F. App’x at 500 (quoting O’Nesti, 2007-Ohio-

1102, at ¶ 6). Claim preclusion also “bars subsequent actions whose claims ‘could have been

litigated in the previous suit.’” Doe ex rel. Doe, 422 F. App’x at 500 (quoting O’Nesti, 2007-

Ohio-1102, at ¶ 6). Issue preclusion, on the other hand, “prevents the ‘relitigation of any fact

or point that was determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in a previous action between

the same parties or their privies,’ even if the causes of action differ.” Doe ex rel. Doe, 422 F.

App’x at 500 (quoting ’Nesti, 2007-Ohio-1102, at ¶ 7); see also Fort Frye Teachers Ass’n v. State

Emp’t Relations Bd., 81 Ohio St.3d 392, 395 (1998).

Only claim preclusion is at issue here. See Doc. 10, PageID 28. Under Ohio law, claim

preclusion has four elements:

(1) a prior final, valid decision on the merits by a court of competent

jurisdiction; (2) a second action involving the same parties, or their privies, as

the first; (3) a second action raising claims that were or could have been litigated

in the first action; and (4) a second action arising out of the transaction or

occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action.

Hapgood, 127 F.3d at 493 (applying Ohio law). Defendants argue that all four elements are

met here. The Court agrees.

Unfortunate as the circumstances in each of these sordid affairs are, this case is on all

fours with Doe ex rel. Doe v. Jackson Local School District, 422 F. App’x 497 (6th Cir. 2011).

There, the mother of a minor student filed suit after the minor student was sexually abused

by another student while riding the school bus. Id. at 498–99. The mother brought state-law

claims against the school district and the bus drivers in state court. Id. at 499. The defendants

moved for summary judgment on political-subdivision immunity grounds. Id. The Court of

Common Pleas denied the motion and defendants appealed. Id. The Ohio Court of Appeals

concluded that the defendants were immune from suit under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § §

2744.02–2744.03 and remanded the case for entry of judgment. Id. The mother then filed suit

in the Northern District of Ohio asserting federal claims arising from the same incident and

abuse. See Doe v. Jackson Local Sch. Sch. Dist., 695 F.Supp.2d 627, 630–33 (N.D. Ohio 2010).

Eventually, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal evaluated whether her federal case was barred

by claim preclusion. Doe ex rel. Doe, 422 F. App’x at 500. The Sixth Circuit found that all four

elements of Ohio claim preclusion were present, and the plaintiff’s claims were barred. Id. at

501–02. The same is true here.

First, the Court of Common Pleas’ September 28, 2021 Judgment Entry (the

“Judgment Entry”) is a final and valid decision on the merits. Under Ohio’s Rules of Civil

Procedure, a dismissal for any reason except lack of jurisdiction or failure to join a party

“operates as an adjudication upon the merits unless the court, in its order for dismissal,

otherwise specifies.” Ohio Civ. R. 41(B)(3). The Judgment Entry in Doe’s state court action

was not for lack of jurisdiction or failure to join a party, and the Judgment Entry does not

specify that the cause was dismissed other than on the merits. The Judgment Entry therefore

satisfies the first element of claim preclusion.5 See also Customized Sols., Inc. v. Yurchyk & Davis,

CPA’s, Inc., 2003-Ohio-4881, ¶ 23 (7th Dist.) (explaining that “if [a] Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal

5 Plaintiff contends that “the first element of [Defendants’] res judicata fails, since a dismissal on immunity

grounds is not a decision on the merits.” Doc. 11, PageID 56. Plaintiff cites to one (1) authority for this

proposition: Alpha Plaza Investments, Ltd. v. City of Cleveland, 2018-Ohio-486. But in Alpha, the Eighth District

Court of Appeals was presented with additional arguments on appeal “not relative to immunity that were

raised by the [defendant-city]” and stated that it “only [had] jurisdiction to decide the issue of sovereign

immunity and not the [other] issues that go to the merits of [the parties’] claims.” Alpha Plaza Investments, Ltd.

v. City of Cleveland, 2018-Ohio-486, ¶ 22 (quoting Reinhold v. Univ. Hts., 2014-Ohio-1837, ¶ 21). Thus, it is a

misreading of Alpha for Plaintiff to claim that the Court of Appeals held that a decision on immunity grounds

is not a final decision on the merits because, in Alpha, the Court of Appeals was only adjudicating upon the

immediate issues which were being appealed. See also Hood v. United States, No. 1:16-cv-400, 2017 WL

3115696, at *1 (W.D. Mich. July 21, 2017) (finding that a court holding that a claim was barred by sovereign

immunity, and in the alternative, by the statute of limitations, was a “final decision on the merits”).

order fails to state that it is without prejudice or that it is not on the merits, then the dismissal

is automatically categorized as a dismissal with prejudice or on the merits”).

Second, this action involves the same parties, or their privies, as the state court action.

Under Ohio law, when the parties to a first and subsequent action are not identical, courts

apply “a broad definition to determine whether the relationship between the parties is close

enough to invoke the doctrine.” Kirkhart v. Keiper, 101 Ohio St.3d 377, 379 (2004). Privity

may thus be established by a “mutuality of interest, including an identity of desired result[.]”

Id. (quoting Brown v. Dayton, 2000-Ohio-148, ¶ 4). Thus, this Court holds that such mutuality

of interest exists here between Doe and his mother. In both the state court action and the case

sub judice, the pleadings seek compensatory and punitive damages for the same episode of

abuse Doe suffered while a student at FHS and against the same defendant-parties.6 Compare

Doc. 1, PageID 11 and Doc. 10-1, PageID 52. Doe argues that he should not be considered

in privity with his mother because she selected “incompetent counsel” to litigate the state

court action. (Doc. 11, PageID 56–57.) While it is true that “the relationship of a parent and

child does not automatically create privity,” it is noteworthy “that in the cases espousing this

principle the interests of the parent and the child were clearly different.” Broxterman v.

Broxterman, 101 Ohio App. 3d 661, 664 (1st Dist. 1995) (collecting cases). Here, there is no

indication that the interests of Doe and his mother “were clearly different,” let alone that they

diverged at all. Id. And importantly, the appropriate remedy for harm caused by “incompetent

6 Only two of the three defendants in the previous state court action are Defendants in the current federal action

(Dillon and FLSD). Lugones is not a defendant in this action. See Doc. 1.

counsel” is a malpractice action; not a second bite at the apple.7 The second element of claim

preclusion is therefore also satisfied.

Third, this action raises claims that could have been litigated in the state court action.

“Res judicata promotes the principle of finality of judgments by requiring plaintiffs to present

every possible ground for relief in the first action.” Kirkhart, 101 Ohio St.3d at 378 (citing Nat’l

Amusements, Inc. v. Springdale, 53 Ohio St.3d 60, 62 (1990)). Doe does not dispute that the

claims now before this Court could have been asserted before the state court. See Doc. 11.

Thus, the third element of claim preclusion is satisfied.

Fourth, and finally, this action seeks to resurrect claims that arose from the same

transaction or occurrence as the state court action. “A transaction or occurrence is defined as

a common nucleus of operative facts.” Doe ex rel. Doe, 422 F. App’x at 501 (applying Ohio

law) (citation and internal quotations omitted). The state court action and this case are

premised upon an identical nucleus of operative facts—namely, Lugones’s sexual abuse of

Doe during the 2017-18 school year while Doe was a student at FHS. Compare Doc. 1 and

Doc. 10-1. The claims are not, in Plaintiff’s words, “significantly different,” Doc. 11, PageID

58, simply because the legal theories Doe pursues here are for federal claims and those Doe

pursued in his initial state court action were for state law claims. Doe ex rel. Doe, 422 F. App’x

at 501–02 (quoting Grava v. Parkman Twp., 1995-Ohio-331, ¶ 8) (“That a number of different

legal theories casting liability on an actor may apply to a given episode does not create

multiple transactions and hence multiple claims.”) The critical question here is whether

Plaintiff’s claims “share a common nucleus of operative facts with [Plaintiff’s] claims in the

7 The Court makes no comment on the propriety of the attorney’s alleged misconduct in the state court action.

[s]tate [c]ourt [a]ction.” Doe ex rel. Doe, 422 F. App’x at 502. Because that query is answered

in the affirmative, the fourth element of claim preclusion is satisfied.

IV. CONCLUSION

Doe’s claims are barred by claim preclusion. Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) and DISMISSES Doe’s Complaint (Doc. 1) WITH

PREJUDICE. The Court ORDERS the clerk to ENTER JUDGMENT and TERMINATE

this matter from the docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 19, 2025 Siagsig Hpbi

ery P. ns

United States District Judge