Jeffrey Wonser v. Charles Norman

── Jeffrey Wonser v. Charles Norman ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Date: May 05, 2026 Category: General NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 26a0202n.06 Case No. 25-3509 FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 05, 2026 FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) JEFFREY WONSER, ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ) SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO CHARLES L. NORMAN, ANDY WILSON; ) THOMAS J. STICKRATH ) OPINION Defendants-Appellees. ) Before: GIBBONS, THAPAR, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges. JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. In March 2022, Jeffrey Wonser applied for a personalized license plate with the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV), but his application was denied because it did not conform to its guidelines. Wonser promptly appealed the denial, but the BMV rejected his request for reconsideration later that month on the same grounds as its initial decision—potential perception of inappropriateness. A few months later, Wonser’s counsel sent a demand letter to the BMV asking it to refrain from further violating Wonser’s right to free speech and approve his personalized license plate application. The letter also asked the BMV to apply constitutionally defensible criteria when evaluating license-plate applications. The BMV declined Wonser’s invitation and implied that, because Wonser had provided varying explanations of the meaning of his requested personalized license plate, it had already properly reviewed his application. No further action was taken on his application, and Wonser eventually received a full refund from the BMV in May 2022. No. 25-3509, Wonser v. Norman et al., In April 2024, after a leadership change at the BMV, Wonser reapplied for the same license plate in hopes of a different outcome. However, the BMV’s online portal still did not allow him to register his license plate. Wonser’s attorney, once again, reached out to the BMV, demanding that it reverse course and warned that if his client’s demands were not met, Wonser would sue. On May 3, 2024, Wonser filed suit against three BMV employees, asserting a Section 1983 claim for violations of his First Amendment rights, both facially and as-applied to him, as well as a state- law claim seeking civil liability. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the district court granted, dismissing Wonser’s case as time-barred under the applicable Ohio statute of limitations, and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state-law claim. On appeal, Wonser raises various issues, but the only ones properly preserved and thus before us are whether the district court erred in dismissing his case as time-barred and, relatedly, whether the “continuing violation” doctrine tolled the statute of limitations applicable to his claims. The record establishes that there is no material issue of fact that Wonser’s latest alleged constitutional violation from April 2024 arises from the denial of the same personalized license plate as his initial violation dating back to March 2022; thus, Wonser’s complaint is untimely. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision granting defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. I. On March 9, 2022, Jeffrey Wonser, an Ohio citizen, filed an application with the BMV to display a personalized license plate comprised of the following characters: F