Plaintiff accuses local government agencies of constitutional violations over pole barn condemnation

A homeowner’s battle with local authorities over a pole barn turned dwelling has reached a critical juncture. Paul Deitz, the plaintiff, filed an appeal against the Clerk of Courts of Shelby County and other defendants on January 12, 2026, at the Court of Appeals of Ohio. The appeal challenges a condemnation order issued by the Sidney-Shelby County Board of Health (SSCBH) concerning his property.

The dispute began in 2022 when Deitz constructed a pole barn on his property with approval from the Sidney-Shelby County Health Department (SSCHD). However, in April 2024, the builder filed a nuisance complaint alleging that Deitz was using the barn as a two-story dwelling without proper inspections or load-bearing support. Despite Deitz’s claims that he used the barn as permitted, subsequent inspections revealed features consistent with residential use, such as patio doors and air conditioning units. These findings led to SSCBH’s referral to the Shelby County Prosecutor’s Office due to non-compliance with water and sewage regulations.

Deitz’s legal struggle intensified when he filed a pro se complaint against several parties including SSCHD employees and sought a temporary restraining order. His appeals challenged SSCBH’s decisions on constitutional grounds, citing violations of due process and improper search warrant issuance. He argued that SSCBH acted in bad faith and retaliated against him following complaints about construction issues. Furthermore, Deitz claimed procedural errors by SSCBH, including overlooking substantial evidence like disconnected septic lines.

In court proceedings, Deitz raised five assignments of error but faced challenges in proving them legally sufficient. The trial court upheld SSCBH’s actions as supported by substantial evidence and appropriate procedural protections. It found no merit in claims of unconstitutional searches or bad faith investigations by SSCHD personnel who had obtained neighbor consent for property observations.

Deitz sought relief through reversing SSCBH’s orders and addressing alleged constitutional breaches; however, his arguments were consistently overruled at various judicial levels. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, dismissing all assignments of error presented by Deitz.

Representing himself throughout this ordeal was Paul Deitz while Michael P. Doyle Jr., served as counsel for the appellees. The case was presided over by Judges John R. Willamowski, Mark C. Miller, and Juergen A. Waldick under Case No. 17-25-10.