Case 1:16-cv-00540-AJT-MSN Document 37 Filed 07/28/17 Page 16 of 20 PageID# 3272
defines the preclusive effect are those events described in Plaintiff’s Petition that he filed in the
Loudoun County Circuit Court on December 22, 2015. Because all of the conduct, transactions,
or occurrences described in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in this action are reflected in
Plaintiff’s state court proceeding that was dismissed with prejudice on December 22, 2015, res
judicata bars all of Plaintiff’s claims in this action that are based on events before December 22,
2015, viz., all claims except those arise out of events that took place after December 22, 2015.
These claims not barred under the doctrine of res judicata include Davidson’s defamation claims
and his claims based on the alleged blocking and/or removal of Davison’s Facebook postings on
pages maintained by LCPS and by Individual Defendants who served as members of LCSB.
Plaintiff’s state court proceedings were filed only against Defendant LCSB, and the next
issue is whether the res judicata effect extends to any of Plaintiff’s claims against the Individual
Defendants, either in their official capacities or individual capacities. Based on settled law, all of
Davidson’s claims against the Individual Defendants, sued in their official capacities, are barred
under the doctrine of res judicata, but not his claims against them in their individual capacities.
In that regard, the Plaintiff specifically alleges that these Individual Defendants held official
positions within the LCPS system or were members of LCSB and were acting on behalf of LCSB
with respect to the no trespass letter and the events leading up to the issuance of that no trespass
letter. For that reason, the res judicata effect extends to Davidson’s claims against them in their
official capacities. See Brooks v. Arthur, 626 F.3d 194, 200 (4th Cir. 2010) (finding privity
between government entity and individual employees sued in their official capacities). There is
no privity, however, between the LCSB and the Individual Defendants sued in their personal
capacities, and the Court must consider these Individual Defendants’ defense that they enjoy
16