# Upkins

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · August 21, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11423754

## Case

- **Full name:** Lamone E. Upkins v. Shelby County, Ohio, Political Subdivision, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** August 21, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11423754

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

LAMONE E. UPKINS, : Case No. 3:26-cv-57
:
Plaintiff, : District Judge Thomas M. Rose
: Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
vs. :
:
SHELBY COUNTY, OHIO, :
Political Subdivision, et al., :
:
Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a State inmate, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Ohio
law against Shelby County, Ohio; Shelby County Sheriff’s Department; Shelby County Job and
Family Services; Shelby County Public Defender’s Office; City of Sidney, Ohio, Police
Department; and various state and local governmental employees. (See Doc. 1-1). By separate
Order, Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915.
This matter is before the Court for a sua sponte review of the Complaint to determine
whether the Complaint or any portion of it should be dismissed because it is frivolous, malicious,
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) & § 1915A(b).
LEGAL STANDARD
Because Plaintiff is a prisoner, and is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must
dismiss the Complaint, or any part of it, that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) & § 1915A(b). Complaints by pro se litigants are to be
construed liberally and held to less stringent standards than those prepared by attorneys. Martin
v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2004). But this leniency is not boundless, and “it is not
within the purview of the district court to conjure up claims never presented.” Frengler v. Gen.

Motors, 482 F. App’x 975, 977 (6th Cir. 2012).
In reviewing Plaintiff’s Complaint at this stage, the Court must construe it in his favor,
accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, and evaluate whether it contains “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). But the Court is not required to accept factual allegations that are “clearly irrational
or wholly incredible.” Ruiz v. Hofbauer, 325 F. App’x 427, 429–30 (6th Cir. 2009). Rather, “[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) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Although “detailed factual
allegations” are not required, the Court must dismiss the Complaint “if it tenders naked

assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 662. (internal quotation
and quotation marks omitted). In the end, “basic pleading essentials” are still required. Wells v.
Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989).
THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff alleges that he was indicted on five counts of drug trafficking in Shelby County
Court of Common Pleas Case No. 22-CR-180 in August 2022. (Doc. 1-1, at PageID 11).
Following the failure of a confidential informant to appear for trial, the case was initially
continued but ultimately dismissed without prejudice. (Id. at PageID 11, 13). The day after Case
No. 22-CR-180 was dismissed, the drug charges were refiled against Plaintiff in Case No. 23-
CR-87, along with a new charge for intimidation of a witness in a criminal case. (Id.).
Case No. 23-CR-87 went to trial on the drug charges in February 2024, and Plaintiff was
convicted. (Id. at PageID 13-14). However, the intimidation of a witness charge was dismissed
without prejudice five days before trial. (Id. at PageID 13). Plaintiff alleges that the intimidation

charge was fabricated by Defendant Sidney Police Department Detectives Ethan Brown and
Mark Brunson and presented to the grand jury by Defendant Shelby County Prosecutors William
Zimmerman, Jr., and Timothy Sell to interfere with Plaintiff’s speedy trial rights and protections
against double jeopardy and to justify the kicking-in of Plaintiff’s door and his arrest without
probable cause in July 2023 by Defendant Shelby County Sheriff’s Department Deputies Chris
Brown and R. Browdy. (Id. at PageID 11, 13-15, 24). Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant
Shelby County Job and Family Services case worker Kim Lear conspired with Chris Brown and
Browdy to film the arrest and later rely on it in a child-custody proceeding involving Plaintiff’s
infant son. (Id. at PageID 15, 24). According to Plaintiff, Defendant Ralph Bauer (formerly a
Shelby County Public Defender) represented the family ultimately awarded custody of the child.

(Id. at PageID 26).
Additionally, Plaintiff contends that the intimidation charge was used to increase his bail
and that his prosecution on the drug trafficking charges was tainted by restrictions imposed by
Defendant Shelby County Court of Common Pleas Judge James F. Stevenson on the use of the
dismissed intimidation charge at trial. (Id. at PageID 13-14). Plaintiff also alleges that
Defendant Shelby County Public Defenders Christopher Wesner and Laura Wayman provided
ineffective assistance of counsel. (Id. at PageID 20-21).
Plaintiff further contends that Shelby County, the City of Sidney, the Shelby County
Prosecutor’s Office, the Shelby County Public Defender’s Office, and the City of Sidney Police
Department maintained a custom of falsifying or altering records. (Id. at PageID 16, 23). In
support of this assertion, Plaintiff relies on the above allegations as well as allegations of past
misconduct dating from proceedings against Plaintiff in 2000 and 2003 involving Defendant
Sidney Police Detectives Jim Jennings and Jeremy Lorenzo, Defendant Stevenson (then a

County prosecutor), Shelby County Public Defender Johnathan Richards, Defendant Bauer, and
Defendant Zimmerman (then a County Public Defender). (Id. at PageID 16–22).
Finally, the Complaint reflects that, at the time it was filed, Plaintiff’s direct criminal
appeal in Case No. 23-CR-87 was pending. (See Doc. 1-1, at PageID 27). A review of the
Shelby County Clerk of Courts website reveals that the appeal was denied by the Ohio Court of
Appeals in March 2026, in Case No. 17-24-12. It appears, however, that additional proceedings
in Case No. 23-CR-87 are ongoing. See, e.g., State v. Upkins, Case No. 17-26-10 (Ohio Ct. App.
(3d Dist.) Aug. 14, 2026) (indicating that Plaintiff’s appeal from the denial of a post-conviction
motion will be submitted on briefs on September 22, 2026); State v. Upkins, Case No. 17-24-12
(Ohio Ct. App. (3d Dist.) Aug. 3, 2026) (denying Plaintiff’s application to reopen direct appeal).1

For relief, Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief, including changes to the custody
arrangement for his son and his release from confinement. (Id. at PageID 15, 17, 27).
ANALYSIS
Based on the above allegations, Plaintiff brings three primary groups of claims: (1)
constitutional claims against the individual Defendants for false arrest and malicious prosecution

1Plaintiff’s state-court cases were viewed at the Shelby County Clerk of Courts website:
https://search.shelbyco.net/eservices/searchresults.page?x=v1Dpt9kQ76qS3YXxMm0hdJEYqfSUniHlPKwAQDvgf
0dgyNRnk*VmV4D8eD1Zcd-Fm1jrYm8kc1VgE82nLXQTBg (by searching under Plaintiff’s name and respective
case numbers). See United States v. Mont, 723 Fed. Appx. 325, 327 n.3 (6th Cir. 2018) (“[I]t is well-settled that
federal courts may take judicial notice of proceedings in other courts of record.”) (citing Lyons v. Stovall, 188 F.3d
327, 332, n.3 (6th Cir. 1999) (brackets, quotation marks, and citation omitted)).
under the Fourth Amendment and for violations of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment
(Claim Group I); municipal liability claims against the governmental entity Defendants under
Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (Claim Group II); and civil conspiracy
claims against the individual Defendants under § 1983, based on allegations of malicious

prosecution, false arrest, and interference with his right to see his son (Claim Group III). (See
Doc. 1-1, at PageID 11, 13-27). Plaintiff also appears to bring a fourth group of claims against
the governmental entity Defendants for state-law fraud. (See id. at PageID 23). For the
following reasons, the Complaint in its entirety should be dismissed without prejudice. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) & § 1915A(b).
A. The Heck Doctrine Bars Most of Plaintiff’s Claims against the Individual
Defendants.

Under the so-called Heck [v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994),] favorable termination rule
(also known as the Heck doctrine), a plaintiff may not assert § 1983 claims that question the
validity of his convictions or sentence unless he demonstrates that the convictions or sentence
have been reversed on direct appeal, declared invalid, expunged by executive order, or called
into question in a habeas corpus proceeding. Lanier v. Bryant, 332 F.3d 999, 1005-06 (6th Cir.
2003).
Here, the entirety of Claim Group I and the parts of Claim Group III alleging conspiracy
claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution are barred by the Heck doctrine. Although
Plaintiff attempts to couch these claims in terms of challenges to his arrest and prosecution on
the dismissed intimidation charge (see Doc. 1-1 at PageID 11, 13-15, 24-27), Plaintiff’s
allegations make clear that his challenges to the dismissed charge cannot be considered
separately from the drug trafficking charges on which he was ultimately convicted. Plaintiff
expressly alleges that he was arrested and convicted following the use of fabricated charging
materials, improper delays attributable to the intimidation charge, and restrictions on his defense
related to that charge. (Id.). In light of such allegations, success on Plaintiff’s claims involving
the dismissed intimidation charge would necessarily call into question the validity of his
convictions on the remaining drug charges. See, e.g., McCray v. Alejandro R., No. 1:20-CV-

3006, 2021 WL 3418812, at *5 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 4, 2021) (citing cases). Nor can Plaintiff avoid
Heck by asserting that Case No. 22-CR-180, involving the same drug charges, was dismissed.
Plaintiff concedes that the dismissed drug charges were refiled in Case No. 23-CR-87. (Id. at
PageID 11, 13).
Thus, in the absence of a showing that Plaintiff’s underlying convictions or sentence on
the drug trafficking charges were reversed on direct appeal, declared invalid, expunged by
executive order, or called into question in a habeas corpus proceeding, Lanier, 332 F.3d at 1005-
06, his Fourth Amendment false-arrest and malicious-prosecution, Fourteenth Amendment due
process, and § 1983 conspiracy claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution cannot proceed.
Because, as noted above, it appears that proceedings in Case No. 23-CR-87 are ongoing, Plaintiff

cannot meet this standard. Accordingly, Claim Group I, in its entirety, and Claim Group III, in
so far as it alleges conspiracy claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution, are barred by
Heck and should be dismissed without prejudice.
B. Jurisdictional Principles Prevent the Court from Considering Plaintiff’s
Remaining Claims against the Individual Defendants.

Plaintiff’s remaining claims against the individual Defendants allege a conspiracy to
interfere with his right to see his son. (Doc. 1-1, at PageID 24-27). It is well settled, however,
that federal courts generally lack jurisdiction over domestic relations matters “even when those
questions are presented in the guise of a federal question.” See Robinson v. Michigan, No. 1:09-
CV-564, 2009 WL 3011225, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 16, 2009) (citing cases). See also Stephens
v. Hayes, 374 F. App’x 620, 623 (6th Cir. 2010) (noting that “[u]nder the principles of comity
and deference to state expertise in the field of domestic relations,” and in accordance with the
court’s “consistent policy,” the Sixth Circuit “decline[d] to exercise jurisdiction” over claims that
constituted collateral attacks on state-court judgments pertaining to child custody).

Because this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims relating to child-custody
matters, those claims (the remainder of Claim Group III) should be dismissed without prejudice.
C. Plaintiff’s Claims against the Governmental Entity Defendants Should Be
Dismissed.

Because Plaintiff has failed to plead a cognizable civil rights violation under § 1983
against any individual Defendant, his municipal liability claims against the governmental entity
Defendants (Claim Group II) (see Doc. 1-1, at PageID 16-23) also fail and should be dismissed
without prejudice. See, e.g., Pinter v. City of New York, 448 F. App’x 99, 106 (2d Cir.2011)
(finding that the plaintiff’s “Monell claims are derivative of his claims against the individual
defendants, and therefore any claims dismissed as against the individual defendants must also be
dismissed as against the City”) (citing City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986)).
D. The Undersigned Does Not Reach Additional Grounds for Dismissal of
Federal Claims.

The undersigned notes that certain of Plaintiff’s federal claims are also likely barred as a
matter of law due to judicial immunity, prosecutorial immunity, or the fact that some Defendants
are not subject to being sued under § 1983. In light of Plaintiff’s claims being subject to
dismissal under the Heck doctrine and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and in furtherance
of the interest in judicial economy, however, the undersigned will not address those issues at this
time.
E. State-Law Fraud Claim
Because Plaintiff’s federal claims are subject to dismissal, the Court should decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law fraud claim (Claim Group IV) (see
Doc. 1-1, at PageID 23). 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. The Court DISMISS without prejudice the entirety of Plaintiff’s federal claims
because those claims are barred by the Heck doctrine or lie beyond the jurisdiction of the federal
courts.
2. The Court DECLINE to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s
remaining state-law fraud claim and that the Court DISMISS that claim without prejudice. 28
U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
3. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that for the foregoing
reasons an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in
good faith. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997).

August 21, 2026 /s/ Caroline H. Gentry
Caroline H. Gentry
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PROCEDURES ON OBJECTIONS:

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of
the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on
timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected
to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report
and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such

portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections
WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d
520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v.
Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11423754. Public record. Not legal advice.