LaVon Moore v. Hiram Twp., Ohio, 988 F.3d 353

Background

LaVon Moore (successor trustee) owns ~108-acre rural property in Hiram, Ohio, site of Far View Airport (operating since 1948); zoning in ~1951 classified the airport as a nonconforming use.
Expanded activities (ultralights, hang gliders) prompted nuisance complaints; in 2016 Township officials required Moore to obtain a certificate of nonconforming use.
The BZA held a hearing, granted a certificate but imposed conditions; Moore appealed the BZA decision to Portage County Common Pleas Court under Ohio R.C. § 2506.01 et seq.
The trial court upheld the certificate but modified some conditions; the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed; Moore did not seek review by the Ohio Supreme Court.
While his state appeal was pending, Moore filed a federal § 1983 suit alleging violations of procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection, plus punitive damages; the district court dismissed under res judicata.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court, holding Moore’s federal claims were barred by claim preclusion because they were or could have been litigated in the earlier § 2506 proceeding.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Moore’s § 1983 claims are barred by res judicata (claim preclusion)	Moore contends his § 1983 claims (esp. damages) could not be litigated in the § 2506 appeal and thus are not precluded	Defendants argue the state-court judgment was final and Moore’s federal claims were or could have been litigated there	Held: Claims barred — state judgment was a final adjudication and the § 1983 claims arose from the same transaction and were or could have been litigated in the § 2506 action
Whether the state judgment was a final adjudication on the merits	Moore implied the state court did not fully resolve his constitutional claims	Defendants: trial court’s judgment resolving the certificate and modifying conditions is a decision on the merits	Held: Final adjudication on the merits; failure to appeal means res judicata consequences apply
Whether remaining defendants (BZA members, zoning inspector) are in privity with the Township	Moore argued individual claims against officials might avoid preclusion	Defendants: officials sued in official capacity are privies of the Township; alleged acts were official duties	Held: Plaintiffs’ pleadings and briefing show official-capacity claims; officials are in privity, so preclusion binds them
Whether inability to obtain money damages in § 2506 creates a “formal barrier” to preclusion	Moore: § 2506 remedies exclude money damages, so § 1983 damages claims were unavailable and should not be precluded	Defendants: Ohio permits joining § 1983 claims with § 2506 appeals; Moore could have pursued federal remedies in state court	Held: No formal-barrier exception — Ohio law requires presenting all grounds that could have been raised; res judicata applies despite § 2506’s remedial limits

Key Cases Cited

Ohio ex rel. Boggs v. City of Cleveland, 655 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2011) (federal courts give state-court judgments the same preclusive effect as state law)
Grava v. Parkman Twp., 653 N.E.2d 226 (Ohio 1995) (Ohio res judicata requires presenting every ground for relief in the first action)
Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (U.S. 1981) (final, unappealed state judgments have preclusive res judicata consequences even if wrong)
Richards v. Jefferson County, 517 U.S. 793 (U.S. 1996) (privity principles bind nonparties in certain circumstances)
Kirkhart v. Keiper, 805 N.E.2d 1089 (Ohio 2004) (privity when party sues officials for acts performed in official capacity)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard: threadbare legal conclusions insufficient)
Rawe v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 462 F.3d 521 (6th Cir. 2006) (claims arising from same transaction must be litigated in the earlier action)
Kottmyer v. Maas, 436 F.3d 684 (6th Cir. 2006) (standard for Rule 12(c) review; accept well-pleaded allegations)