In the federal lawsuit, Dodson v. Mohr, Case No. 2:18-cv-908, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138303, 2021 WL 3169153 (S.D. Ohio, July 26, 2021), the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the ODRC, former ODRC Director Gary Mohr, Chrystal P. Alexander of the Office of Victim Services, Ohio Adult Parole Authority (OAPA) Chairperson Tracy Thalheimer, and eight other members of the OAPA who were on the Ohio Parole Board (OPB) at the time of his parole hearings. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that [1] the OPB did not violate appellant's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because the procedures used in appellant's parole hearing were sufficient to comport with due process.
On August 11, 2022, the OAPA filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, judgment on the pleadings. The OAPA argued that relator's complaint should be dismissed because relator is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel from raising the issue of meaningful consideration in his 2018 and 2021 parole hearings because this issue has already been litigated and decided in State ex rel. Dodson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 21AP-448, 2022-Ohio-2552; and Dodson v. Mohr, S.D.Ohio No. 2:18-cv-908 (July 26, 2021), affirmed in Ricardo Dodson v. Gary Mohr, Case No. 21-3778 (6th Cir.2022) ("Mohr"). {ΒΆ 43} 26.