Background
In March two thousand twenty-two, Jeffrey Wonser applied for a personalized license plate reading F four six space L G B with the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles. The agency denied the request citing guidelines against potential inappropriateness. Wonser appealed and sought reconsideration, but the denial was upheld. He later reapplied in April two thousand twenty-four after a leadership change, but the system automatically rejected the same plate. He filed suit in May two thousand twenty-four alleging First Amendment violations.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the statute of limitations for Section nineteen eighty-three claims, which borrows the state personal injury limit of two years in Ohio. The cause of action accrued in March two thousand twenty-two when the initial denial became final. The court rejected the argument that the April two thousand twenty-four denial was a discrete act restarting the clock, noting that repeated requests for the same relief do not create new violations. The continuing violation doctrine did not apply because there were no continual unlawful acts, only the ill effects of the original denial.
Repeated requests for further relief from a prior act of discrimination does not set the time limitations running anew.
EEOC v. McCall Printing Co., 633 F.2d 1232, 1237 (6th Cir. 1980)
What it means going forward
This ruling reinforces that plaintiffs must file civil rights challenges within the statutory window, even if the government agency continues to enforce the same policy against them. It clarifies that identical rejections of the same request do not reset the limitations period.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download