noting that res judicata requires “prior final, valid decision on the merits” and declining to apply it to prior dismissal without prejudice
How later courts described this case
- noting that res judicata requires “prior final, valid decision on the merits” and declining to apply it to prior dismissal without prejudice
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
TONYA CHRISTIAN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) NO. 3:19-cv-0685
)
DCS – STATE OF TN. et al, )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Tonya Christian has filed a Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Doc. No. 1) against
DCS – State of TN and numerous individuals. For good cause shown, Plaintiff’s Application to
Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. No. 4) is GRANTED.
However, for the reasons set forth herein, the Complaint is DISMISSED.
I. Initial Review
Because Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the Court is required under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2) to conduct an initial review of the Complaint and to dismiss it if it is facially frivolous
or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601,
604 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). The
Sixth Circuit has confirmed that the dismissal standard articulated by the Supreme Court in
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
(2007), “governs dismissals for failure to state a claim under [§ 1915(e)(2)] because the relevant
statutory language tracks the language in Rule 12(b)(6).” Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470–71
(6th Cir. 2010).
A pro se pleading must be liberally construed and “held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Estelle
v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
II. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff names “DCS–State of TN” as a defendant in the case caption of the complaint.
In the body of the pleading she identifies the following as defendants: Elizabeth Brown, Amani
Loggins, Kiara Davis, Una Norwood, Caitlyn Febles, and Chelsea Woods, all of whom are
alleged to be “case workers”; Robert E. Lee Davies, Donna Davenport, and Adam T. Dodd, all
of whom are state court judges or magistrates; Jasmine White, “clinical manager” for Youth
Villages; Carl Moore, “GAL”; Martha Gillipse-Stewart [sic], State Attorney; Matthew Wright,
State Attorney; and Shonda Reynolds Christian, Team Coordinator for DCS. (Doc. No. 1, at 1–
3.)
Plaintiff alleges only that her child was removed, presumably from her home, without a
warrant, in violation of her parental rights as well as her rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. She asserts that her rights have been
violated in a number of ways and provides a substantial number of legal citations and
summations of the law that she believes supports her position. She states that this Court “has also
failed to follow rulings by the Supreme Court.” (Doc. No. 1, at 6.)
Plaintiff does not allege any actual facts in support of her claims, but she indicates that
she has “already presented paperwork about this several times in this court.” (Id.) In that regard,
the Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff has filed two previous lawsuits in this Court. The
first, Christian v. Reynolds Christian, No. 3:17-cv-00809, was filed in May 2017 and named as
defendants most of the defendants named in the current case, in addition to many others. It was
2
assigned to the Honorable Aleta A. Trauger, who dismissed the case without prejudice on initial
review for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff did not take an appeal.
The second case, Christian v. Reynolds-Christian, No. 3:19-cv-00133, was assigned to
the Honorable Eli J. Richardson. On initial review, Judge Richardson dismissed the claims
against all but four defendants and referred the case to the magistrate judge. The magistrate judge
later entered two separate Reports and Recommendations, recommending that the Motions to
Dismiss filed by the remaining defendants be granted and that the claims against those
defendants be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for which relief could
be granted. Plaintiff did not file objections to the magistrate judge’s Reports and
Recommendations. Judge Richardson therefore granted the Motions to Dismiss and dismissed
the case in its entirety in July 2019. Plaintiff did not appeal the dismissal of that case either.
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on August 8, 2019, shortly after the dismissal of her second
lawsuit.
III. Analysis
Insofar as Plaintiff seeks to bring suit against the same defendants based on the same
events at issue in her two prior lawsuits, all of which were previously dismissed, the claims are
still subject to dismissal on the same grounds as those asserted by Judges Trauger and
Richardson in the prior cases. 1 The appropriate course of action, if Plaintiff disagreed with the
1 Prior claims against any defendants that were dismissed with prejudice on the merits
would be barred by res judicata, but it appears that most of the prior claims were dismissed
without prejudice, in which event res judicata does not attach. See Montana v. United States,
440 U.S. 147, 153 (1979) (res judicata “preclude[s] parties from contesting matters that they
have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate”); Ohio ex rel. Boggs v. City of Cleveland, 655
F.3d 516, 522 (6th Cir. 2011) (noting that res judicata requires “prior final, valid decision on the
merits” and declining to apply it to prior dismissal without prejudice).
3
prior rulings in those cases, was to appeal the dismissal.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks to bring suit based on entirely new events, those claims are
subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted, because Plaintiff
has not alleged any facts—as opposed to conclusory statements and legal theories—in support of
such claims.
IV. Conclusion and Order
Plaintiffs application to proceed as a pauper (Doc. No. 2) is GRANTED.
The Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim for which
relief may be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Wael Lshas
WAVERLY(D/ CRENSHAW, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE