# Chapman v. Allen

> District Court, W.D. Tennessee · January 31, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10792154

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** January 31, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10792154

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that, “[w]here a litigant brings repeated actions based upon the same operative facts,” res judicata may still apply “despite a change in legal theory or the ‘cast of characters-defendants’”
- stating that “[b]oth the ADA and the RA undoubtedly apply to state prisons and their prisoners”

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION

)
BILLIE JOE CHAPMAN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 1:24-cv-01042-SHM-tmp
)
DONALD ALLEN, ET AL., )
)
Defendants. )
)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO MODIFY DOCKET,
DISMISSING CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE,
DENYING LEAVE TO AMEND, DENYING PENDING MOTIONS,
CERTIFYING THAT APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH,
NOTIFYING PLAINTIFF OF APPELLATE FILING FEE,
NOTIFYING PLAINTIFF OF COURT’S STRIKE RECOMMENDATION
UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G), AND CLOSING CASE

On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff Billie Joe Chapman, Tennessee Department of Correction
prisoner number 633331, an inmate incarcerated at the Hardeman County Correctional Facility
(the “HCCF”), in Whiteville, Tennessee, filed a pro se civil complaint under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., and under § 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act (the “RA”), 29 U.S.C. § 794. (ECF No. 1.) Chapman moved for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) The Court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assessed the
civil filing fee in accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (the “PLRA”), 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915, et seq. (ECF No. 4.)
On May 15, 2024, Chapman filed a motion seeking to amend his complaint to add
defendants. (ECF No. 11.) The Court GRANTS Chapman’s motion to amend (ECF No. 11) as
a matter of course. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). For purposes of screening Chapman’s ADA and
RA claims under the PLRA, the Court CONSOLIDATES the original complaint (ECF No. 1) and
the motion to amend (ECF No. 11) as the “Consolidated Complaint.”
Chapman sues the following Defendants:
(1) the Honorable Donald Allen of the 26th Judicial District of the Circuit Court of the
State of Tennessee;
(2) Madison County Assistant District Attorney F/N/U Boyd (“ADA Boyd”);
(3) Madison County Assistant Attorney General F/N/U Earls (“Assistant AG Earls”);
(4) Joshua Phillips, Public Defender;
(5) Jack Collin Morris, Appointed Counsel;
(6) Jerry Wardlow, Warden;
(7) the State of Tennessee;
(8) Madison County Jail;
(9) Madison County Circuit Court;
(10) Jackson General Hospital;
(11) Hardeman County Sheriff’s Department; and
(12) Western State Mental Institution

(ECF No. 1 at PageID 1 & ECF No. 11 at PageID 81-82). Chapman sues Defendants (1)-(6) in
their individual and official capacities. (ECF No. 1 at PageID 1.) The Clerk is DIRECTED to
modify the docket to add Defendants (7)-(12).
Chapman seeks an “immediate injunction” for his release from custody. (Id. at PageID 9.)
Chapman requests $1,500 a day for every day that Chapman has been “illegally held” at the HCCF.
(Id.)
Chapman filed a motion for the appointment of counsel on March 6, 2024, and six other
motions between March 6, 2024, and July 17, 2024. (ECF Nos. 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15.) Those
motions (referred to collectively as the “Pending Motions”) request relief as follows:
(1) Motion for the Court to Take Judicial Notice, asking the Court to take notice that
Chapman is proceeding under the ADA and not 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 8);
(2) Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Injunction, seeking access to the HCCF
law library (ECF No. 9);
2
(3) Motion for Court to Intervene, asking the Court to intervene in the lawsuit based
on Chapman’s allegation that he was “taken advantage of” as a “mentally disabled
person” during his criminal prosecution (ECF No. 12 at PageID 85-86);
(4) Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, reiterating that Chapman is proceeding under the
ADA, not § 1983 (ECF No. 13 at PageID 91);
(5) Motion for the Court to Intervene, asking the Court to intervene in the lawsuit
because “Defendants and their employers . . . lie [and] avoid the issues of a mentally
disable[ed] American” (ECF No. 14 at PageID 97);
(6) Motion for the Clerk to Modify the Docket, asking the Court to direct the Clerk to
modify the docket to change the cause from “42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights” to
ADA (ECF No. 15).

The Consolidated Complaint (ECF Nos. 1 & 11) and the Pending Motions (ECF Nos. 7-9
& 12-15) are before the Court.
For the reasons explained below: (1) the Consolidated Complaint is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE in its entirety; (2) leave to amend is DENIED; and (3) all Pending Motions are
DENIED.
I. SCREENING THE COMPLAINT
A. LEGAL STANDARD
The Court must screen prisoner complaints and dismiss any complaint, or any portion of
it, if the complaint—
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
In assessing whether the complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted, the Court
applies the standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), as stated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 677-79 (2009), and in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007).
Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). Applying those standards, the Court accepts
3
the complaint’s “well-pleaded” factual allegations as true and then determines whether the
allegations “plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.” Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383
(6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681). The Court does not assume that conclusory
allegations are true, because they are not “factual,” and all legal conclusions in a complaint “must

be supported by factual allegations.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. A complaint must contain “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 555 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). It also requires factual allegations to make a “‘showing,’
rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief.” Id. at 555 n.3 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2)).
“Pro se complaints are to be held ‘to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted
by lawyers,’ and should therefore be liberally construed.” Williams, 631 F.3d at 383 (quoting
Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2004)). Pro se litigants are not exempt from the
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th
Cir. 1989); see Brown v. Matauszak, 415 F. App’x 608, 612, 613 (6th Cir. 2011) (affirming

dismissal of pro se complaint for failure to comply with “unique pleading requirements” and
stating “a court cannot ‘create a claim which [a plaintiff] has not spelled out in his pleading’”
(quoting Clark v. Nat’l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975))).
B. REQUIREMENTS TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER THE ADA & THE RA
Chapman sues under the ADA and § 504 of the RA. (ECF No. 1 at PageID 1.) To state
a claim under either the ADA or § 504 of the RA, Chapman must show that he is “(1) disabled
under the statute, (2) otherwise qualified for participation in the program, [services, or activities],
and (3) being excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination

4
under[,] the program, [services, or activities] by reason of his . . . disability.” S.S. v. E. Ky. Univ.,
532 F.3d 445, 453 (6th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Chapman alleges that he was arrested on October 20, 2020, for a theft offense. (ECF No.

1 at PageID 2.) Chapman alleges that the police “illegally talk[ed] to [Chapman] without an
attorney” despite knowing that Chapman was “mentally disabled.” (Id.) Chapman alleges that
he was “abused” in the Madison County Jail, including being “tied to a chair,” placed in a “strip
cell,” and sprayed with mace. (Id. at PageID 3.)
Chapman alleges that on February 25, 2021, he was “kidnapped” from the Madison County
Jail and taken to Jackson General Hospital where he was “tied to a bed [and] forced [to take] mind-
altering drugs.” (Id.) Chapman alleges that in March 2021, he was assaulted by unidentified
employees of the Madison County Jail while “tied to the [hospital] bed.” (Id.)
Chapman alleges that during “the first week of March 2021,” he was “kidnapped” from the
Jackson General Hospital “without judge or court order” and taken to the Western State Mental

Institution. (Id. at PageID 3-4.) Chapman alleges that he was “forced” to take “anti-psychotic
medication” and was threatened with “physical force” and “takedowns” if he refused the
medication. (Id. at PageID 4.) Chapman alleges that he was civilly committed “without judge
or court order” in violation of his constitutional rights. (Id.)
Chapman alleges that in March 2021 Chapman “complained” to Judge Allen about
Chapman’s civil commitment. (Id. at PageID 5.) Chapman alleges that he had a hearing before
Judge Allen and that Judge Allen “had knowledge of everything that took place.” (Id.)

5
Chapman alleges that in May 2021, he was released from the Western State Mental
Institution and returned to the Madison County Jail. (Id.) Chapman alleges that he was “kept
under mental health care” at the Madison County Jail and confined naked in a “strip cell.” (Id.)
Chapman alleges that, while confined at the Madison County Jail, he was “still being forced

[to take] mind-altering drugs.” (Id. at PageID 6.)
Chapman alleges that on September 7, 2021, Judge Allen sent Chapman to prison without
authority because “there was no plea of guilty or nolo contendere.” (Id.) Chapman alleges that
ADA Boyd engaged in malicious prosecution, but Chapman does not allege any facts to support
this allegation. (See id.)
Chapman alleges that his appointed counsel Phillips failed to protect Chapman’s rights and
liberties. (See id.) Chapman alleges that Phillips and ADA Boyd conspired with Judge Allen to
coerce Chapman’s guilty plea on September 7, 2021, and that Chapman did not “kn[o]w what was
going on” at the plea hearing. (Id. at PageID 7.) Chapman alleges that he was “tricked” and “led
to believe that [if he pleaded guilty,] he would get out of jail and go to a special place for help.”

(Id.)
Chapman alleges that Judge Allen appointed Morris to serve as Chapman’s post-conviction
counsel. (Id.) Chapman alleges that, because Morris was Judge Allen’s friend and former
colleague, Morris refused to bring any “complaints” against Judge Allen. (Id. at PageID 8.)
Chapman alleges that Morris refused to raise Chapman’s desired claims in the state post-conviction
application. (Id.) Chapman alleges that, instead, Morris raised claims that Chapman’s trial
counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel and that Chapman “was not competent” to plead
guilty. (Id.)

6
III. ANALYSIS
A. Res Judicata
On July 24, 2023, Chapman filed a civil rights action under § 1983 against many of the
same defendants that Chapman sues in his Consolidated Complaint. (See Chapman v. Allen, No.

1:23-cv-1146-SHM-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), ECF No. 1.) The factual allegations in Chapman’s
previous § 1983 lawsuit are almost identical to the allegations raised in his Consolidated
Complaint.
For example, Chapman alleged in his § 1983 lawsuit that Judge Allen “sentenced
[Chapman] to prison without authority on September 7, 2021” because “no plea [was] ever made
on a plea agreement.” (ECF No. 1 at PageID 3.) Chapman alleged that, while his criminal case
was pending, he was taken from the Madison County Jail and sent to the Western State Mental
Institution where he was forced to take antipsychotic drugs without his consent and without a
“judge or court order.” (Id. at PageID 7.)
Chapman alleged that ADA Boyd and ADAG Earls “acted in concert to illegally

restrain/kidnap [Chapman].” (Id. at PageID 3.) Chapman alleged that his attorneys Phillips and
Morris did “not protect [the] rights of [Chapman] [and] caus[ed] [Chapman’s] illegal conviction
[by] refus[ing] to protect [Chapman] with ineffective assistance of counsel.” (Id. at PageID 3-4.)
Chapman alleged that, “before and after September 7, 2021” and “through November 1,
2021,” employees at the Madison County Jail: (1) assaulted Chapman; (2) left Chapman naked in
his cell; (3) refused to provide pen, paper, and mail service to Chapman; (4) prohibited Chapman
from calling his public defender; (5) denied bedding to Chapman; (6) sprayed Chapman with mace

7
and pepper spray when he refused to take his medication; and (7) subjected Chapman to
“mistreat[ment] and cruel and unusual punishment.” (Id. at PageID 8-9.)
On February 15, 2024, the Court dismissed Chapman’s § 1983 lawsuit with prejudice for
failure to state a claim to relief. (See Chapman v. Allen, No. 1:23-cv-1146-SHM-tmp (W.D.

Tenn.), ECF No. 15.) The Court construed Chapman’s complaint to allege 10 claims under
§ 1983 and determined that 9 of those claims were barred by the statute of limitations. (Id. at
PageID 150, 155-57.) The Court determined that Chapman’s remaining claim of false
imprisonment against Judge Allen was subject to sua sponte dismissal because, among other
reasons, the claim was barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity and by Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477 (1994). (Id. at PageID 157-60.)
Although Chapman did not raise claims under the ADA and the RA in his previous lawsuit,
the doctrine of claim preclusion, or res judicata, bars Chapman from litigating a new legal theory
based on the same operative facts. “[P]laintiffs cannot avoid the effects of claim preclusion by
merely repacking their grievances into alternative theories of recovery or by seeking different

remedies.” Heike v. Cent. Mich. Univ. Bd. of Trs., 573 F. App’x 476, 482 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing
Rawe v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 462 F.3d 521, 529 (6th Cir. 2006)).
In Heike, the Sixth Circuit held that the dismissal of a plaintiff’s prior § 1983 lawsuit
precluded her from bringing a new lawsuit challenging the same conduct as violative of Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972. Id. at 477.
The Sixth Circuit explained that, “to constitute a bar under the doctrine of claim preclusion, there
must . . . be an ‘identity of the causes of action.’” Id. at 482-83 (citing Westwood Chem. Co. v.
Kulick, 656 F.2d 1224, 1227 (6th Cir. 1981)). “Causes of action share an identity where the facts

8
and events creating the right of action and the evidence necessary to sustain each claim are the
same.” Id. at 483. The Sixth Circuit concluded that the plaintiff’s “initial § 1983 claims share[d]
an identity to those asserted in her second lawsuit because all of her claims stem[med] from the
same set of operative facts.” Id. As the Sixth Circuit explained, had the plaintiff “brought her

Title VI and IX claims alongside her § 1983 claims, she necessarily would have relied on the same
evidence in support of those claims,” and it was “of no moment that the statutory elements of Titles
VI and Title IX claims differ from those of an equal protection or due process claim raised under
§ 1983.” Id.
Res judicata bars Chapman’s claims under the ADA and the RA because his claims, which
rely on the “same set of operative facts” should have been raised in Chapman’s previous § 1983
lawsuit.1 See id. Chapman’s claims under the ADA and the RA are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
B. ADA & RA Claims
Even if Chapman’s claims under the ADA and the RA were not barred by the doctrine of

res judicata, the Consolidated Complaint would be subject to dismissal because Chapman’s
conclusory allegations do not “plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.” Williams, 631 F.3d at
383.

1 Although the Consolidated Complaint includes additional defendants, res judicata bars
Chapman’s claims against them because Chapman had a full and fair opportunity to raise his
claims against those defendants in his prior lawsuit. See Georgia-Pacific Consumer Prods. LP v.
Four-U-Packaging, Inc., 701 F.3d 1093, 1098 (6th Cir. 2012) (explaining that, “[w]here a litigant
brings repeated actions based upon the same operative facts,” res judicata may still apply “despite
a change in legal theory or the ‘cast of characters-defendants’”) (quoting Randles v. Gregart, 965
F.2d 90, 93 (6th Cir. 1992).

9
Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason
of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services,
programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”
42 U.S.C. § 12132. Under § 504 of the RA any “otherwise qualified individual with a disability”

is protected from “be[ing] excluded from the participation in, be[ing] denied the benefits of, or
be[ing] subjected to discrimination” under specified programs “solely by reason of . . . his
disability.” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). Because claims brought under Title II of the ADA and § 504 of
the RA require proof of substantially similar elements, courts analyze ADA and RA claims
together. See, e.g., S.S., 532 F.3d at 452-53 (analyzing ADA and RA claims together).
The Supreme Court has held that Title II of the ADA applies to state prisons and inmates,
Penn. Dep’t of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 212 (1998). The RA also applies to state prisons
and inmates. See Wright v. N.Y. Dep’t of Corr., 831 F.3d 64, 72 (2d Cir. 2016) (stating that
“[b]oth the ADA and the RA undoubtedly apply to state prisons and their prisoners”).
Chapman makes the conclusory allegation that he is “mentally disabled.” (ECF No. 1 at

PageID 2.) Chapman alleges that he received anti-psychotic medication while treated at the
Western State Mental Institution, but he fails to provide specific details about the nature of his
disability. (See id. at PageID 4.)
“Mental illnesses of various sorts can certainly qualify as a disability under the ADA [and
the RA], but where . . . a party alleges that he is disabled under the ADA [and the RA], courts have
generally required the party to plead the disability with some factual specificity.” Adams v.
Vanderbilt Univ., No. 3:23-cv-00001, 2024 WL 1182861, at *17-18 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 19, 2024)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Chapman does not describe his mental illness

10
with any specificity and has failed to allege sufficient facts to show that he has a qualifying
disability under the ADA or the RA. See id.
Even if Chapman had alleged sufficient facts to show that he has a disability under the
ADA and the RA, Chapman’s allegations would not show that he was excluded from a service or

program, denied accommodation, or discriminated against due to his disability. See § 12132
(ADA); see also § 794(a) (RA). All of Chapman’s allegations are based on or related to his state
court criminal proceedings. His allegations are insufficient to state any covered discrimination
based on his unspecified mental illness.
Chapman’s conclusory allegation of violations of the ADA and the RA without specific
supporting factual allegations fail to state a claim to relief. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79;
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Chapman’s claims under the ADA and the RA are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
IV. AMENDMENT UNDER THE PLRA
The Sixth Circuit has held that a district court may allow a prisoner to amend his complaint

to avoid a sua sponte dismissal under the PLRA. Lucas v. Chalk, 785 F. App’x 288, 291 (6th
Cir. 2019) (citing LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 2013)). Leave to amend
should not be granted where a plaintiff cannot cure the deficiency in his complaint. See Gonzalez-
Gonzalez v. United States, 257 F.3d 31, 37 (1st Cir. 2001) (“If it is crystal clear that . . . amending
the complaint would be futile, then a sua sponte dismissal may stand.”); see also Curley v. Perry,
246 F.3d 1278, 1284 (10th Cir. 2001) (“We agree with the majority view that sua sponte dismissal
of a meritless complaint that cannot be salvaged by amendment comports with due process and
does not infringe the right of access to the courts”).

11
The Court DENIES leave to amend the Consolidated Complaint. Amendment would be
futile because Chapman’s claims under the ADA and the RA are barred by the doctrine of res
judicata and fail to state to claim to relief.
V. APPELLATE ISSUES

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), it is
CERTIFIED that any appeal in this matter by Chapman would not be taken in good faith. If
Chapman nevertheless chooses to file a notice of appeal, he must either: (1) pay the entire appellate
filing fee or, if he is confined at that time, (2) submit a new in forma pauperis affidavit and a
current, certified copy of his inmate trust account statement for the last six months, in compliance
with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)-(b).
VI. NOTICE OF STRIKE RECOMMENDATION
The “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) prevents a court from granting
in forma pauperis status to a prisoner who “has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated
or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was

dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Court recommends that the dismissal of this case be
treated as a strike pursuant to § 1915(g). See Simons v. Washington, 996 F.3d 350 (6th Cir. 2021).
VII. CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above:
A. Chapman’s ADA claim and his claim under § 504 of the RA are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous because they are barred by res judicata and, in the

12
alternative, for failure to state a claim to relief. See §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii) &
1915A(b)(1).
B. Leave to amend the Consolidated Complaint is DENIED.
C. The Court recommends that this dismissal be treated as a strike pursuant to

§ 1915(g). See Simons, 996 F.3d 350.
D. The Court CERTIFIES that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and DENIES
leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
E. All Pending Motions (ECF Nos. 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15) are DENIED.
F. This case is DISMISSED in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of January, 2025.

/s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr.
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10792154. Public record. Not legal advice.