The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a federal lawsuit against Dayton, Ohio police officers and local government entities in connection with a tragic domestic violence incident that left two people dead.
In *Patricia Wilkinson v. City of Dayton, Ohio* (6th Cir. 2026), the appeals court upheld a district court's decision to dismiss claims brought by the estates of Aisha Nelson and her six-year-old daughter Harper Guynn on res judicata grounds. The case centers on the police response to a domestic dispute that occurred shortly before both victims were fatally shot.
According to the court's opinion, the tragic events unfolded in June 2022 when Waverly Hawes, who lived with Nelson and her daughter, called police requesting that Nelson be removed from their shared home in Dayton. Officers Terrell Moore and Kathryn Santos responded to the domestic dispute call and spoke with both Hawes and Nelson for approximately 30 minutes.
During the police encounter, Nelson informed the officers that Hawes had threatened her life and disclosed that he owned a gun. Despite these warnings, Nelson specifically asked the officers to remove Hawes from the residence. However, the officers departed without making any arrests or removing either party from the home.
The situation escalated dramatically within an hour of the police departure. Hawes fatally shot both Nelson and her daughter before taking his own life, according to the court record.
Following the deaths, an Ohio probate court appointed Patricia Wilkinson as administrator of the estates of both Nelson and Guynn. The estates initially pursued legal action in state court, filing suit against the responding officers and other local government defendants. However, that state court case was dismissed.
Undeterred by the initial dismissal, the estates refiled their lawsuit in federal court, this time adding some relatives as additional plaintiffs to the case. The federal complaint appears to have alleged that the police officers' response to the domestic dispute violated the constitutional rights of the victims.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio reviewed the federal case but ultimately dismissed it on res judicata grounds. Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, is a legal doctrine that prevents parties from relitigating claims that have already been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction.
The estates appealed the federal district court's dismissal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In their appeal, they likely argued that the federal constitutional claims were distinct from those raised in the state court proceeding, or that other factors should prevent the application of res judicata.
However, in an opinion authored by Circuit Judge Kethledge and joined by Circuit Judges Bush and Nalbandian, the Sixth Circuit rejected these arguments and affirmed the dismissal. The appeals court found that res judicata properly barred the federal claims based on the prior state court adjudication.
The case reflects the complex legal challenges that arise when families seek accountability following police responses to domestic violence situations that end in tragedy. Federal civil rights lawsuits under Section 1983 have become a common vehicle for challenging police conduct, particularly when plaintiffs allege that officers failed to protect victims from known dangers.
Domestic violence cases present particularly difficult legal questions for law enforcement officers, who must balance competing safety concerns while operating within constitutional constraints. Officers generally cannot arrest individuals without probable cause, and courts have established that police typically have no constitutional duty to protect specific individuals from private violence.
The Supreme Court's decision in *DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services* (1989) established that the Due Process Clause generally does not impose an affirmative duty on government officials to protect individuals from private violence. However, plaintiffs in cases like *Wilkinson* may argue that special circumstances created a duty or that police conduct affirmatively increased the danger to the victims.
The Sixth Circuit's decision to mark this opinion as "not recommended for publication" indicates that the court views it as applying established law to specific facts rather than setting new precedent. Unpublished opinions, while binding on the parties, carry less precedential weight than published decisions.
For the families of Nelson and Guynn, the Sixth Circuit's affirmance likely represents the end of their federal court challenge, absent a petition for Supreme Court review. The res judicata ruling effectively forecloses further litigation of their claims against the Dayton police officers and other defendants.
The case underscores the legal obstacles that domestic violence victims' families face when seeking to hold law enforcement accountable for inadequate responses to emergency calls. While the tragic outcome in this case highlights the life-or-death stakes of police decision-making in domestic disputes, federal courts remain reluctant to second-guess officer judgment calls absent clear constitutional violations.