A federal lawsuit alleges that county officials violated a resident’s constitutional rights during the investigation and condemnation of his property, raising concerns about due process and government overreach in local enforcement actions. The complaint was filed by Paul Deitz on March 6, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against various individuals and entities associated with Shelby County, including public health staff, prosecutors, court administrators, and county departments.
According to the filing, Deitz asserts that his primary residence at 11744 Fair Road in Sidney became the subject of a series of actions by health department officials beginning in September 2024. The dispute centers on a pole barn located on Deitz’s homestead property. The complaint states that on September 4, 2024, two public health officials conducted what Deitz describes as “warrantless surveillance and photography” inside and outside his pole barn by entering neighboring property without his consent or a warrant. He alleges this occurred despite clearly posted “No Trespassing” signs and resulted in eight photographs being taken—only four of which were later used to support an application for a search warrant.
Deitz claims these actions violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. He further alleges that subsequent legal processes were tainted by selective use of evidence and omissions in official affidavits. Specifically, he states that material facts contradicting claims of improper use or nuisance were left out when applying for a search warrant on September 18, 2024. “The affidavit relied on only 4 out of the 8 photographs taken during the September 4 warrantless surveillance from the neighbor’s property (fruit of the poisonous tree), selectively omitting the remaining 4 photos that contradicted claims,” according to the complaint.
The lawsuit also details alleged retaliatory actions following Deitz’s attempts to cooperate with authorities. On September 17, 2024, after speaking with Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Emily Mothmiller about resolving concerns regarding his pole barn, an internal email labeled Deitz as a security threat without documented incident or factual basis. This email was reportedly forwarded to third parties outside the prosecutor’s office. A July 31, 2025 opinion from the Court of Claims is cited: “no evidence that Mr. Deitz engaged in threatening behavior,” confirming “the falsity of the threat label by clear and convincing evidence.” Deitz argues this labeling constituted defamation per se as well as retaliation for protected activity such as records requests and litigation.
Further allegations involve procedural issues with notices issued to Deitz regarding alleged code violations. He contends that a November 7, 2024 demand letter from Mothmiller imposed an unauthorized compliance deadline leading to condemnation but lacked required notice elements under local housing regulations. According to Deitz’s account, critical photographic evidence showing no active sanitation violation was withheld until January 6, 2025—nearly two months after it was referenced—and only days before a formal Condemnation Notice was issued on January 13, 2025.
Deitz maintains that these notices were defective because they did not identify any new violation or emergency situation justifying immediate action against his property. He asserts that enforcement actions were carried out before approval by relevant boards or commissions: “The Board of Health did not approve the condemnation until its January 15, 2025 meeting — after the Notice had already been issued and acted upon.” Internal emails cited in exhibits suggest there was no emergency at any point; instead one message allegedly described pursuing condemnation for “legal leverage.”
On March 13, 2025, according to court documents attached to the filing, a Common Pleas Court order modified previous restrictions by allowing storage uses but prohibiting human habitation within the pole barn. Despite this modification—and despite no finding that would prohibit lawful uses—the same “UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION” placard was reposted at the site on January 15, 2026 with sheriff escort. The complaint argues this ongoing posting stigmatizes lawful use of the property: “This ongoing restriction constitutes a continuing violation… resetting the statute of limitations with each day.” Attempts by Deitz to clarify what specific violations justified continued restrictions have reportedly been unsuccessful.
The lawsuit lists five causes of action: unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment; First Amendment retaliation; procedural due process violations; arbitrary enforcement violating substantive due process; and municipal liability for policies resulting in constitutional deprivations. In support of these claims Deitz references several court decisions—including findings from state courts indicating lack of threatening behavior or emergencies—as well as communications between county employees regarding enforcement motives.
Deitz seeks declaratory relief recognizing constitutional violations; a permanent injunction requiring removal of all condemnation placards; vacatur of related notices; compensatory damages exceeding $500,000 for emotional distress and lost use; punitive damages exceeding $1 million for alleged willful conduct; costs; attorney fees; and other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Paul Deitz is representing himself (pro se) in this matter. Attorneys named within correspondence include Emily Mothmiller (Assistant Prosecuting Attorney), Michael P. Doyle Jr., Madison S. Brinkman (Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys), among others referenced as defendants or involved parties throughout attached exhibits. The case number is listed as Case No.: [To be assigned].
Source: 326cv00077_Deitz_v_Wuebker_Complaint_Southern_District_Ohio.pdf
