# Flippen

> District Court, M.D. Tennessee · October 23, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11176696

## Case

- **Full name:** Nicholas Shane Flippen v. Rolling Hills Hospital, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** October 23, 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/11176696

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
NICHOLAS SHANE FLIPPEN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) No. 3:25-cv-00617
v. )
) JUDGE RICHARDSON
ROLLING HILLS HOSPITAL, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Nicholas Shane Flippen, a resident of Franklin, Tennessee, filed a pro se action alleging
federal claims of sexual harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive
discharge, among other claims, Defendants Rolling Hills Hospital, his former employer; UHS of
Delaware, Inc., the parent company of Rolling Hills Hospital; Lisa Jones, former Human
Resources Director of Rolling Hills Hospital; and Shannon Geary, Director of the Business Office
at Rolling Hills Hospital. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff also filed an Application for Leave to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2), a Motion to File Address Under Seal or With Redaction (Doc No.
3), and a Motion for Service by U.S. Marshals Service (Doc. No. 4). The Court must begin with
the filing fee.
I.FILING FEE
The Court may authorize a person to file a civil suit without paying the filing fee. 28 U.S.C.
§1915(a). Section 1915 is intended to insure that indigent persons have equal access to the judicial
system by allowing them to proceed without having to advance the fees and costs associated with
litigation. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989); Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours &
Co., 335 U.S. 331, 342 (1948). Pauper status does not require absolute destitution. Adkins, 335
U.S. at 339; Foster v. Cuyahoga Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 21 F. App’x 239, 240 (6th
Cir. 2001). Rather, the relevant question is “whether the court costs can be paid without undue
hardship.” Foster, 21 F. App’x at 240. Proceeding in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right, and
“[t]he decision whether to permit a litigant to proceed [in forma pauperis] is within the Court’s

discretion.” Id.
Because his IFP Application reflects that he lacks sufficient financial resources to pay the
full filing fee without undue hardship, Plaintiff’s IFP Application (Doc. No. 2) is GRANTED.
The Clerk therefore is DIRECTED to file the complaint in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
II. MOTION TO SEAL AND/OR REDACT
Plaintiff has filed a motion to file his personal address under seal or with redaction. (Doc.
No. 3). Local Rule 5.03 requires that any party requesting that documents or portions of documents
be sealed must comply with Section 5.07 of Administrative Order No. 167-1 and Local Rule 7.01.
These rules require the movant to file a motion for leave to file the document(s) under seal and to
demonstrate “compelling reasons to seal the documents and that the sealing is narrowly tailored to

those reasons by specifically analyzing in detail, document by document, the propriety of secrecy,
providing factual support and legal citations.” M.D. Tenn. Local Rule 5.03(a). Although Plaintiff
has filed the required motion, he has not made the requisite showing. His motion does not provide
the required specificity or the factual and legal support for the request to seal.
“It would be easy—in the interest of judicial economy, one might say—to grant a sealing
motion when no party objects.” Lewis v. Smith, No. 2:20-cv-3461, 2020 WL 6044082, at *3 (S.D.
Ohio Oct. 13, 2020). “But a court should not, indeed cannot, grant a motion to seal simply because
it is easy and convenient to do so.” United States v. Campbell, No. 1:19-cr-25, 2021 WL 1975319,
at *1 (S.D. Ohio May 18, 2021). Instead, a court evaluating a motion to seal must consider the
weighty public interests in judicial transparency and open access to court records. Shane Group,
Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016). As the Sixth Circuit
recently explained, “a court’s obligation to explain the basis for sealing court records is
independent of whether anyone objects to it.” Id. at 306.

Here, Plaintiff alleges that “public disclosure of [his] home address raises serious concerns
for safety, privacy, and potential retaliation related to the nature of the allegations in this matter.”
(Doc. No. 3 at 2). He further alleges that “[r]eleasing Plaintiff’s residential address on the public
docket could expose him to unwanted attention or harassment and serves no legitimate public
interest.” (Id.)
Neither harm to reputation nor conclusory allegations of injury are sufficient to overcome
the presumption in favor of public access. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Federal Trade
Commission, 710 F.2d 1165, 1179-80 (6th Cir. 1983) (citing Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880, 884 (2d
Cir. 1982)) (“A naked conclusory statement that [disclosure will injure a producing party] . . . falls
woefully short of the kind of showing which raises even an arguable issue as to whether it may be

kept under seal.”). “Only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial
records.” In re The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir.1983) (citing
Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1179-80).
The complaint contains no allegations of prior or current harassment occurring outside of
Plaintiff’s former workplace. For example, the complaint does not allege that any named
Defendant showed up at Plaintiff’s personal residence and engaged in unlawful behavior. Without
more, the reasons provided by Plaintiff in support of his request to seal do not justify non-
disclosure of judicial records. Plaintiff elected to initiate this lawsuit. Plaintiff’s request to file his
full address under seal is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Alternatively, Plaintiff asks the Court to allow the redaction of Plaintiff’s residential
address from the public docket. It appears that, at this time, the only place where Plaintiff’s
residential address1 is displayed is on the Civil Cover Sheet, which Plaintiff failed to submit as a
Sealed Document event in CM/ECF in compliance with Local Rule 5.03(b)(1) and (2). Plaintiff’s

request to allow the desired redaction is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
In the event Plaintiff wishes to renew his requests via a revised motion, the Court also calls
Plaintiff’s attention to Local Rule 5.03(e), which states that the party requesting that some of a
filing be sealed should separately file a redacted version, if practicable.2
III. SCREENING AND REFERRAL
The Court must dismiss any action filed in forma pauperis if it is 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In doing so, the Court applies the
same standard as under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Hill v. Lappin, 630
F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). The Court therefore accepts “all well-pleaded allegations in the

complaint as true, [and] ‘consider[s] the factual allegations in [the] complaint to determine if they
plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.’” Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011)
(quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681 (2009)). An assumption of truth does not, however,
extend to allegations that consist of legal conclusions or “‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further
factual enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
557 (2007)). A pro se pleading must be liberally construed and “held to less stringent standards

1 Plaintiff’s former residential address appears on his 2024 Schedule C (Form 1040) tax filing,
which he submitted in support of his IFP Application. (See Doc. No. 2 at 4).

2 The Court notes that Plaintiff may wish to consider that his full Social Security Number appears
on his 2024 Schedule C tax filing.
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)).
Plaintiff brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§
2000e to 2000e-17, which proscribes certain discriminatory employment practices. Plaintiff has

successfully invoked the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
Before filing suit in federal court under Title VII, a plaintiff must first timely file a relevant
charge of discrimination before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) or
corresponding state agency. Amini v. Oberlin Coll., 259 F.3d 493, 398 (6th Cir. 2001). The purpose
of this requirement is to allow the EEOC the opportunity to convince the parties to resolve the
matter by voluntary settlement rather than through litigation. Randolph v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth
Servs., 453 F.3d 724, 731-32 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Parsons v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 741 F.2d
871, 873 (6th Cir. 1984)). A plaintiff must file a charge with the EEOC within 180 days after the
alleged unlawful employment practice occurred. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). If the EEOC finds that
the charge has a reasonable basis, it will issue a notice of right-to-sue to the plaintiff. 29 C.F.R. §

1601.28(b). Upon receipt of a notice of right-to-sue, the employee has 90 days in which to bring a
federal action alleging violation of Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). Administrative exhaustion
thus involves (1) timely filing a charge of employment discrimination with the EEOC and (2)
receiving and acting upon a statutory right-to-sue notice. Granderson v. Univ. of Mich., 211 F.
App’x 398, 400 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Puckett v. Tenn. Eastman Co., 889 F.2d 1481, 1486 (6th
Cir. 1989)).
Plaintiff has filed a right-to-sue letter dated March 11, 2025. (See Doc. No. 1-1 at 13). He
filed this lawsuit on June 4, 2025, which is within the 90-day window mentioned above. (Doc. No.
1).
The complaint alleges that Plaintiff formerly was employed at a Financial Counselor and
Patient Account Representative at Rolling Hills Hospital. Defendant Shannon Geary, Director of
the Business Office and Plaintiff’s superior at the time, “repeatedly subjected Plaintiff to
inappropriate, aggressive, and humiliating behavior, including yelling, public degradation, threats,

and unwelcome sexual remarks.” (Doc. No. 1 at 3). Plaintiff made internal complaints to Lisa
Jones, his Human Resources Director, but no formal investigations or documentation were
produced. On one occasion, Jones instructed Plaintiff to submit Paid Time Off (“PTO”) to report
workplace abuse. When Plaintiff refused to return to work until the harassment was addressed,
Jones threatened Plaintiff with a “no-call, no-show” classification, despite her having denied
Plaintiff’s PTO request. Plaintiff was forced to resign on June 9, 2023, due to the escalating
emotional distress, workplace hostility, and lack of any legitimate recourse. According to Plaintiff,
his resignation constituted constructive discharge. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff suffered
severe emotional distress, reputational harm, and financial hardship.
Plaintiff’s allegations state non-frivolous Title VII claims against Defendants who are not

immune from suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Service by the U.S. Marshals Service (Doc.
No. 4) is GRANTED, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a service packet (a blank
summons (AO 440) and USM 285 form) for each Defendant. Plaintiff MUST complete the service
packets and return them to the Clerk’s Office within 30 DAYS of the entry of this Order. Failure
to do so may result in the dismissal of this case. Upon return of the properly completed service
packets, the Clerk is DIRECTED to issue summons(es) to the U.S. Marshals Service for service
on Defendant(s). Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(b) and 4(c)(3).
Resources for pro se litigants, including instructions for how to accomplish service of
process, are available free of charge on the Court’s website as well as by request to the Clerk’s
Office so long as the privilege is not abused.
This action is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge to oversee service of process, to enter
a scheduling order for the management of the case, to dispose or recommend disposition of any
pretrial motions under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and to conduct further proceedings, if
necessary, under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Court.
Plaintiff 1s advised that he must keep the Court informed of his current address or this
action will be subject to dismissal.
It is so ORDERED.
CLL Richerdamn
CL Ruck
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11176696. Public record. Not legal advice.