Chappel v. Hunter et al

Filing 7

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT: (1) Plaintiff's new civil complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B); (2) In the alternative, should a reviewing court determine that any jurisdiction exists, Plaintiff's federal claims should be dismissed with prejudice based on her attempts to sue Defendants who are immune from suit, as well as her failure to state any claim, while any remaining state court claims should be dismissed without prejudice; (3) Plaintiff's motions for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order and for a stay of state court proceedings (Docs. #5 , #6 ) should be DENIED, either on the merits for the reasons stated, or alternatively as moot in light of the recommended dismissal of her complaint. Objections to R&R due by 7/22/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 7/8/2024. (km)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
DAWN CHAPPEL,

Case No. 1:24-cv-318

Plaintiff,

Hopkins, J.
Bowman, M.J.

v.
MAGISTRATE DAVID HUNTER, et al.,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On June 10, 2024, Plaintiff Dawn Chappel, proceeding pro se, filed an application
seeking to initiate the above-captioned case in forma pauperis, or without payment of a
filing fee. By separate Order, Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This matter is now before the Court for a sua
sponte review of the complaint to determine whether the complaint, or any portion of it,
should be dismissed because it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint
be DISMISSED, and that her separately tendered motions for a stay of state court
proceedings and for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief be
DENIED. In addition, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff be formally warned that
the initiation of a fourth legally frivolous and repetitive lawsuit in this Court is likely to result

in a judicial finding that she is a vexatious litigator and the imposition of prefiling
restrictions.
I.

The Screening Standard

In enacting the original in forma pauperis statute, Congress recognized that a
“litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying
litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive
lawsuits.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 324 (1989)).To prevent such abusive litigation, Congress has authorized federal
courts to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if they are satisfied that the action is
frivolous or malicious. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A complaint may be
dismissed as frivolous when the plaintiff cannot make any claim with a rational or arguable
basis in fact or law. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328-29 (1989); see also Lawler v.
Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990). An action has no arguable legal basis
when the defendant is immune from suit or when plaintiff claims a violation of a legal
interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
Congress also has authorized the sua sponte dismissal of complaints that fail to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A complaint
filed by a pro se plaintiff 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)
(per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). By the same token,
however, the complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Hill, 630 F.3d

2

at 470-71 (“dismissal standard articulated in Iqbal and Twombly governs dismissals for
failure to state a claim” under §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The Court must accept
all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, but need not “accept as true a legal conclusion
couched as a factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan v. Allain,
478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Although a complaint need not contain “detailed factual
allegations,” it must provide “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmedme accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A pleading that
offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders
“naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” Id. at 557. The complaint
must “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which
it rests.” Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 (citations omitted).
II.

Plaintiff’s Prior Litigation

Plaintiff previously filed two federal cases involving the same state protective
custody proceedings that form the basis for the above-captioned lawsuit. See Chappel
v. Adams County Children’s Services, et al., No. 1:22-cv-747-SJD-KLL and Chappel v.
Hunter, et al., No. 1:23-cv-728-DRC-SKB. Both of those cases were dismissed upon
initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
In her first case in this Court, Plaintiff sued Adams County Childrens’ Services
(“ACCS”) and Ashlee Moore, a caseworker with ACCS. On initial screening, Magistrate

3

Judge Karen Litkovitz filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) that recommended
the sua sponte dismissal of Plaintiff’s prior complaint with prejudice. In a Supplemental
R&R, Magistrate Judge Litkovitz recommended the denial of Plaintiff’s motion to amend
her complaint. On May 19, 2023, U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott adopted the original
R&R as written and the Supplemental R&R with modification. The Court held that both
Plaintiff’s original claims and her proposed amended complaint were equally barred for
lack of jurisdiction based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and also were barred under
Younger abstention to the extent that the child custody proceedings that formed the
basis of Plaintiff’s federal complaint remained ongoing in Adams County. See Chappel
v. Adams Cnty. Children's Services, No. 22-cv-747, 2023 WL 4191724, *3-4 and n.8
(S.D. Ohio May 19, 2023); see also id., *7 n.12. In the alternative, the Court concluded
that Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint failed to state any claim for relief against
either ACCS or Moore. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice and
certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. (Id.)
Less than six months later, Plaintiff filed a second lawsuit in which she named a
new set of defendants1 and attempted to raise new claims,2 while continuing to
challenge the validity of state court proceedings related to the custody of her children.
See Chappel v. Hunter, No. 1:23-cv-728-DRC-SKB. On December 7, 2023, the
undersigned filed an R&R that recommended dismissal of her second complaint with
prejudice on multiple grounds, including based on a lack of federal jurisdiction, the
1

The defendants named in Plaintiff’s second lawsuit included two state court judges who presided over the
custody dispute, two public defenders who represented Chappel in those proceedings, the juvenile court’s
guardian ad litem, the Adams County Board of Commissioners, and an official with the Adams County
Health Department. (Doc. 5 ¶¶ 2–8, #277–78).
2
Six of the seven new claims alleged procedural due process violations, while a seventh claim was
construed as alleging a substantive due process violation. (See No. 23-cv-728, Doc. 9, PageID 582-583,
summarizing claims).

4

Eleventh Amendment, the Burrus abstention doctrine, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
and Younger abstention. See generally, No., 1:23-cv-728-DRC-SKB, (R&R at Doc. 7).
In objections to that R&R, Plaintiff abandoned her demands for broad declaratory and
injunctive relief relating to most claims, as well as her requests for compensatory and
punitive damages. She also abandoned her request for reversal of the state court’s prior
orders. (See Doc. 9, PageID 584). On March 27, 2024, U.S. District Judge Cole
construed Plaintiff’s express disavowal of her claims for relief as a form of amendment
to her complaint. The Court therefore construed her complaint as seeking only limited
declaratory and equitable relief relating to the termination of the state’s drug testing
procedures. (Id., Doc. 9 at PageID 587).
The constructive amendment of Plaintiff’s claims for relief essentially mooted
portions of the R&R’s analysis. Ultimately, Judge Cole adopted in part, modified in part,
and rejected in part that R&R. In lieu of the recommended dismissal with prejudice,
Judge Cole dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice solely for lack of
jurisdiction. Judge Cole explained that Plaintiff’s amendment of her claims for relief
created a “redressability” issue, because the newly limited relief would not provide a
remedy for most of the claims asserted. Therefore, Plaintiff lacked standing to pursue
five of her seven claims. (Id., PageID 589-591, discussing Plaintiff’s lack of standing for
Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, and Count 6).3 The Court further held that the Eleventh Amendment,
Younger abstention and the Burress doctrine barred Plaintiff’s remaining two claims.
(Id., PageID 592-595). Finally, the Court denied as moot Plaintiff’s separate petition for
writ of habeas corpus, along with a construed motion for judgment on the pleadings, in

3

Judge Cole also reasoned that Plaintiff lacked standing to assert her children’s rights because her children
are no longer in her custody.

5

light of the dismissal of all other claims. (Id., PageID 598).
III.

Allegations of Plaintiff’s Third Complaint

Two and a half months after the dismissal of her second complaint, Plaintiff
submitted a third iteration. Notably, Plaintiff’s new 32-page complaint, supported by
another 195 pages of exhibits, challenges the same ongoing Adams County Juvenile
Court proceedings at issue in Plaintiff’s prior two lawsuits. Once again, Plaintiff’s
complaint is based on her status as the biological mother of the two minor children who
are the subject of state court custody proceedings. Again, she contends that her two
children were wrongfully removed from her custody in November 2022, that her civil rights
were violated during the investigation and removal process, and subsequently through
improper drug screening including multiple false positive tests.
Since the dismissal of Plaintiff’s last case, Plaintiff has continued to implore the
state court to return custody of the children to her, without success. State court records
attached to Plaintiff’s latest complaint reflect the following recent developments: (1) the
recusal of Judge Spencer and withdrawal of GAL Carrington in February 2024; (2) the
appointment of Judge Margaret A. Clark as the new presiding judge and the appointment
of a new GAL for the minor children,4 (3) Plaintiff’s May 2024 execution of a waiver of
counsel that reflects her intent to proceed pro se in future state court proceedings; and
(4) an April 2024 judgment entry directing ACCS to file a “Permanent Custody Motion with
the Court.” (Doc. 1-1, Ex. 36-42, 45, PageID 134-147, 150). The new pleading and
supporting exhibits further reflect that the state court has set the matter for a pre-trial
hearing on July 19, 2024, and has scheduled the permanent custody hearing on ACCS’s

4

Initially, Christine Scott was appointed as the new GAL but that appointment was subsequently changed
to Ms. K. Danielle Whitt. (Doc. 1-1, PageID 152).

6

pending motion for permanent custody for August 9, 2024. (Complaint at ¶ 81; see also
id., Ex. 46, PageID 152). In addition to her new complaint, Plaintiff has submitted a
“motion for stay” seeking an immediate stay of custody proceedings scheduled for July
19 and August 9, 2024 concerning the permanent custody of her children, and a motion
for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction seeking the same relief sought
in her complaint. (Docs. 1-3, 1-4).
Rereading the pleadings filed in Plaintiff’s prior two federal cases, the undersigned
has confirmed that most of the same allegations have been restated in her current case,
with the primary differences being Plaintiff’s inclusion of allegations regarding more recent
state court proceedings and slight differences in the cast of characters and claims
asserted. Six of the named Defendants in Plaintiff’s current complaint were previously
named as defendants in No. 23-cv-728-DRC-SKB, including: Magistrate David Hunter,
Adams County Court of Common Pleas Judge Brett Spencer, public defenders Tyler
Cantrell and Sarah Shelton; Adams County guardian ad litem (“GAL”) Mackenzie
Carrington; and Shayla Tumbleson, a Peer Recovery Specialist at the Adams County
Health Department. However, in her 2023 case, Plaintiff also named the Adams County
Board of Commissioners. She omits that entity in the instant case but adds as a defendant
the new presiding judicial officer, Judge Margaret A. Clark,5 as well as (in her caption)
Defendant Does 1-100. (See No. 1:24-cv-317-JPH-SKB, Doc 1-1, ¶¶ 2-8, PageID 7-8).
Briefly, all three of Plaintiff’s complaints trace the challenged custody proceedings
to the actions of an Adams County Children’s Services (“ACCS”) employee, Ashlee
Moore. In both prior complaints and in her current complaint, Plaintiff alleges Ms. Moore

5

Although Plaintiff repeatedly refers to her as “Magistrate Clark,” Judge Clark is a retired Brown County
Court of Common Pleas judge sitting by assignment.

7

played a central role in obtaining a state court order that resulted in the removal of
Plaintiff’s children from her custody in November 2022. (Doc. 1-1, ¶¶ 17-23). Plaintiff
complains of various procedural due process violations regarding related hearing(s), and
that ACCS officials and others entered her home pursuant to an allegedly improper
complaint and resulting improper court order(s). (Doc. 1-1, ¶¶ 40, 42, 44 PageID 14). She
further complains that she was subjected to a violation of the Fourth Amendment when
the state court granted an order allowing entry into her home “without providing the family
notice and an opportunity to object.” (Id., ¶ 41).
According to Plaintiff, Magistrate Hunter adjudicated the Plaintiff’s children as
dependent on November 23, 2022 and issued temporary custody to ACCS. He also
ordered Plaintiff and the children’s father to undergo mental health and drug and alcohol
assessments. (Id., ¶ 51, 53). Defendant Attorney Shelton was Plaintiff’s court-appointed
attorney at the time. Plaintiff alleges that she tried to submit evidence to the court, but
Magistrate Hunter handed the documents to Ms. Shelton. Plaintiff alleges that after the
November hearing, Ms. Shelton withdrew from representation without filing an objection
to Magistrate Hunter’s refusal to review Plaintiff’s documentary evidence. (Id., ¶47, 121).
After Ms. Shelton’s withdrawal, the court appointed Defendant Tyler Cantrell to
represent Plaintiff. (Id., ¶ 57). Attorney Cantrell appeared on Plaintiff’s behalf at a hearing
held in February 2023, but Plaintiff later sought his removal based on an alleged conflict
of interest. The state court granted Plaintiff’s motion. (Id., ¶ 121, 125).
Throughout the instant complaint as well as in her prior federal cases, Plaintiff
disputes the procedures used to remove her children from her home and the allegations
of substance abuse made against her in state court proceedings. She alleges that findings

8

of drug use were based on tests that were improperly administered by employees
including Defendant Shayla Tumbleson, and/or that the results reflect false positives.
Plaintiff complains of other violations of her due process rights during state court
proceedings, including the alleged forging of her signature on a case plan, the exclusion
of Plaintiff’s evidence and witnesses, and inadequate notice of a prior motion to extend
the agency’s custody and for permanent custody. (See id., ¶¶ 71-75, 84).
In addition to alleging wrongdoing during ongoing custody proceedings involving
Plaintiff’s own children, Plaintiff’s pleadings include allegations relating to custody
proceedings of an unrelated nonparty parent, whom Plaintiff identifies as “A.C.” Plaintiff
generally alleges that A.C.’s children also were wrongfully removed. She suggests that
the agency’s motive in removing Plaintiff’s children “could very well be a case of retaliation
for her advocating for [A.C.’s] family.” (Id. ¶ 91).
Based on the foregoing allegations, Plaintiff sets forth four causes of action. Her
first claim, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserts that judicial officers Magistrate Hunter and
Judge Spencer “violated the Fourth Amendment by granting orders allowing entry into the
Plaintiff’s home without evidence to support probable cause” when her children were first
removed. (Id., ¶111). She also alleges violations of her procedural due process rights
based on November 2022 state court orders permitting entry into her home to remove her
children. (Id., ¶123).
Plaintiff’s second claim also ostensibly arises under federal law. In her second
cause of action, she alleges that the three state judicial officers, her two formerly
appointed attorneys, and prior GAL Mackenzie Carrington all violated Plaintiff’s
substantive due process rights by “the use of unreliable drug tests” in prior state court

9

proceedings. (Id., ¶ 120). She also cites the procedural due process violations that
allegedly occurred at the November 23, 2022 hearing before Magistrate Hunter, including
the court’s refusal to review her evidence and failure of her court-appointed attorneys to
sufficiently advocate for Plaintiff. (Id.) Among a litany of violations, she cites an alleged
conflict of interest by one court-appointed attorney, judicial bias, retaliatory actions, and
many procedural irregularities “such as forged signatures and omitted pages.” (Id., ¶¶
122-128).
In contrast to her first two claims, Plaintiff’s third and fourth causes of action arise
(if at all) under state law. Her third cause of action alleges that various Defendants are
liable for the negligent infliction of emotional distress, while her fourth cause of action
alleges the intentional infliction of emotional distress
II. Analysis
A. Applicability of the Court’s Analysis in Plaintiff’s Two Prior Cases
Consistent with this Court’s prior analysis of the complaints filed in Case Nos. 22cv-747-SJD-KLL and 23-cv-728-DRC-SKB, the undersigned recommends the dismissal
of the above-captioned civil complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In a section of
her new complaint titled “Jurisdiction and Venue,” Plaintiff argues that the reasons stated
for the dismissal of her two prior complaints should not apply to the above-captioned
complaint. (Doc. 1-1 at ¶¶ 9-16, PageID 8-9). The undersigned is not persuaded.
For example, Plaintiff argues that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar her
current claims because there is no final state court judgment, and her federal claims are
independent of state court decisions. (Doc. 1-1 at ¶12). She argues that the Burrus
doctrine is inapplicable to federal constitutional claims and that the Younger abstention

10

doctrine does not apply because “no state proceedings were ongoing” when the alleged
constitutional violations first occurred. Additionally, she claims that there is no adequate
opportunity for her to raise her claims in state court, and that the state court has operated
in bad faith. (Id. at ¶ 13-15).
Notwithstanding the slightly different formulation of claims and defendants, this
Court’s prior analysis of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (to the extent that the prior state
court custody rulings remain the source of Plaintiff’s injuries)6 and of Younger abstention
(to the extent that the state custody proceedings remain ongoing) applies with equal force
to Plaintiff’s latest complaint. In the interests of judicial economy, that prior analysis is
incorporated herein as if fully restated See Chappel v. Adams Cnty. Children's Services,
No. 22-cv-747, 2023 WL 4191724, *3-4 and n.8 (S.D. Ohio May 19, 2023); id., *7 and
n.12; see also Chappel v. Hunter, No., 1:23-cv-728-DRC-SKB, (Doc. 7, R&R), 2023 WL
8477951, at *7-9 (S.D. Ohio, 2023).7
The undersigned also rejects Plaintiff’s contention that she should be permitted to
present her claims to this Court because her remedy in state court is inadequate. Judge
Cole previously addressed this issue in No. 1:23-cv-728-DRC-SKB. “[T]he juvenile court
provides an adequate forum for Chappel to raise her constitutional due process

6

Plaintiff’s current “Prayer for Relief and Injunction” expressly requests this Court to order “Immediate
Reunification of the Plaintiff’s Children with their parents and each other.” (Doc. 1-1, PageID 36). Lest there
be any doubt as to the source of Plaintiff’s claimed injury, her request for relief would overturn the state
court’s custody orders to date. In fact, she specifically seeks an order “vacating improper orders” issued by
Judge Spencer, Magistrate Hunter, Judge Clark in their official capacities. (Id.)
7
In both of her prior two cases, Plaintiff amended her complaint to limit her requests for relief after the
assigned magistrate judges suggested that Rooker-Feldman would bar this Court from directly altering state
court custodial orders. In Chappel v. Adams Cnty Children’s Services, Judge Dlott held that the amendment
did not change the source of the injury and that Rooker-Feldman would still apply. By contrast in Chappel
v. Hunter, Judge Cole declined to address the application of Rooker-Feldman after Plaintiff eliminated her
request to overturn the state court orders. Id. at n.9. Nevertheless, Judge Cole agreed that Younger
abstention barred Plaintiff’s remaining claims for injunctive relief. See id., 2024 WL 1307221, at *6-7.

11

challenges.” (Id., Doc. 9 at 16-17 and n.7, rejecting Chappel’s argument that the state
court proceedings were unfair based on speculation that the court tampered with
evidence and her disagreement with the court’s rulings). Plaintiff adds nothing to her latest
complaint to alter that conclusion.
B. Further Analysis of Plaintiff’s Current Complaint
The undersigned writes further to discuss additional reasons for the dismissal of
Plaintiff’s latest complaint, and to explain the basis for warning Plaintiff that filing further
iterations are likely to result in a judicial finding that she is vexatious.
1. Additional Reasons Against the Exercise of Federal Jurisdiction
Just as in her prior two lawsuits, Plaintiff’s claims generally challenge the
procedures, orders and decisions of the Adams County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
Court Division. More than a century ago, the United States Supreme Court proclaimed
that “[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child,
belongs to the laws of the states and not to the laws of the United States.” In re Burrus,
136 U.S. 586 (1890). As previously discussed in No. 1:23-cv-728-DRC-SKB, what is
commonly known as the domestic relations exception to federal subject matter jurisdiction
encompasses all cases “involving the issuance of a divorce, alimony, or child custody
decree.” See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 704, 112 S. Ct. 2206 (1992).
Plaintiff’s claims fall squarely within that exception, meaning that all of her claims for
monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief are barred. Accord Stephens v. Hayes, 374
Fed. Appx. 620, 623 (6th Cir. 2010). Her speculative and conclusory allegations of due
process violations do not alter the equation on the record presented. See Danforth v.
Celebrezze, 76 Fed. Appx. 615, 616 (6th Cir. 2002). Additionally, as Judge Cole explained

12

in No. 1:23-cv-728-DRC-SKB, Plaintiff lacks standing to assert any type of due process
claims on behalf of her children, because she no longer has custody of them. See Elk
Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 124 S.Ct. 2301, 2312, 542 U.S. 1, 16-18 (2004),
abrogated on other grounds by Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572
U.S. 118 (2014).
Multiple other reasons also counsel against the assumption of federal jurisdiction.
Apart from the domestic relations exception, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review
Plaintiff’s claims because the source of her injury is founded on the state court’s
rulings. See generally Chappel, 2023 WL 4191724, *3-4 (internal footnote omitted,
discussing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine). Although Magistrate Judge Litkovitz expressed
some doubt in her first complaint as to whether Rooker-Feldman would apply after Plaintiff
dropped her direct request for reversal of the Juvenile Court’s orders,8 Plaintiff has
renewed her request for reversal of the state court rulings in this case. In any event, Judge
Dlott determined that the doctrine still applied even after Plaintiff dropped her direct
request for reversal of the state court’s rulings. See Chappel, 2023 WL 4191724 at *7
(citing Hall v. Bush, No. 1:20-cv-731, 2021 WL 4239855, at *6 (W.D. Mich. July 21, 2021),
report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 3750164 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 25, 2021)).
Last but not least, the Younger abstention doctrine bars Plaintiff’s claims for
injunctive relief. Plaintiff’s latest complaint confirms that the custody proceeding remains

8

Under Rooker-Feldman, federal jurisdiction may still attach where a litigant presents an independent claim
that challenges the constitutionality of a state official's action. But in No. 1:22-cv-747-SJD-KLL, the Court
pointed out that Plaintiff had failed to state any independent claim, in part because she failed to properly
sue the Adams County Board of Commissioners. The Court reasoned that even if she had named the Board
as a defendant, her “claim would fail because she did not allege that a specific policy, custom, or decision
of the Adams County Board of Commissioners caused her alleged constitutional injury as required by
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).” Chappel, 2023 WL 4191724, at *4 (S.D.
Ohio May 19, 2023). As in her first case, Plaintiff’s current claims fail because she does not name the
Adams County Board of Commissioners.

13

ongoing. Again, the undersigned incorporates the Court’s most recent analysis
concerning Younger abstention in full. See No. 1:23-cv-728-DRC-SKB, Doc. 7, R&R at
PageID 535-536 and Doc. 9 at PageID 595-597 (discussing doctrine at length as fully
applicable to all claims that were not otherwise foreclosed); see also No. 1:22-cv-747SJD-KLL, 2023 WL 2568300, at *4-5 (S.D. Ohio March 20, 2023); id., 2023 WL 4191724,
at *4, n.8 and at *7 n.12. In short, Younger abstention provides another firm jurisdictional
bar to many of the claims presented in Plaintiff’s latest complaint. See generally, Kelm v.
Hyatt, 44 F.3d at 419-421.
2. Failure to State a Claim Under § 1983
Even if a reviewing court were to determine that this Court could exercise
jurisdiction over any possible claim, the undersigned alternatively recommends dismissal
with prejudice for failure to state any federal claim against any Defendant under § 1983.
Given the failure to state any federal claim, the Court also should decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over any possible state claims.
Plaintiff insists that federal jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which
requires her to allege facts showing the cause of action arises under federal law. Here,
she alleges that all Defendants violated her constitutional due process rights under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege and show: (1) that
she was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and
(2) that the deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of state law. Parratt v.
Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981) (overruled in part by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327,
330 (1986)); Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155–56 (1978); Black v. Barberton
Citizens Hosp., 134 F.3d 1265, 1267 (6th Cir. 1998). Both parts of this two-part test must

14

be satisfied to support a claim under § 1983. See Christy v. Randlett, 932 F.2d 502, 504
(6th Cir. 1991).
The reasons as to why Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim under § 1983
nearly equal the reasons that this Court lacks jurisdiction. Start with the identified
Defendants. Plaintiff purports to seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against Judge
Spencer, Magistrate Hunter, Judge Clark, Tyler Cantrell, Sara Shelton, and Mackenzie
Carrington in their official capacities, and seeks various forms of monetary damages
against the same six Defendants and a seventh individual, Ms. Tumbleson, in their
individual capacities. (Doc. 1-1 at PageID 36-37). As the undersigned previously
discussed in No. 1:23-cv-728-DRC-SKB, however, the doctrine of absolute judicial
immunity bars all claims against Judge Spencer, Magistrate Hunter, and Judge Clark.
See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991); Pearson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967); Barrett
v. Harrington, 130 F.3d 246, 255 (6th Cir. 1997).
Every allegation against the judicial officers concerns words spoken or actions
undertaken in their judicial capacities in connection with the ongoing custody
proceedings. Judges retain absolute immunity even if they act maliciously or corruptly, as
long as they are performing judicial acts and have jurisdiction over the subject matter
giving rise to the suit against them. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978);
Stern v. Mascio, 262 F.3d 600, 607 (6th Cir. 2001). “Whether an action is judicial depends
on the nature and function of the act, not the act itself.” DePiero v. City of Macedonia, 180
F.3d 770, 784 (6th Cir. 1999). “‘Judicial immunity’ is shorthand for the doctrine of absolute
immunity that operates to protect judges and quasi-judicial officers alike from suit in both
their official and individual capacities.” Dixon v. Clem, 492 F.3d 665, 674 (6th Cir. 2007).

15

Plaintiff’s attempts to name the judicial officers in both their official and individual
capacities, and conclusory allegations that they acted without jurisdiction, are patently
insufficient to overcome this absolute bar.
Likewise, former GAL Carrington, as an advisor to the court, occupies a position
that falls “squarely within the judicial process” and therefore is also entitled to absolute
judicial immunity from suit under federal law. Kurzawa v. Mueller, 732 F.2d 1456, 1458
(6th Cir. 1984) (citing Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 325 (1983)). A guardian ad litem
also enjoys absolute immunity under Ohio law. See Kriwinsky v. Deligianis, No. 1:22-cv1599, 2023 WL 4421634, at *3 (N.D. Ohio May 10, 2023); see also, generally, Pittman v.
Cuyahoga Cnty. Dept. of Children and Family Services, 640 F.3d 716, 726 (6th Cir. 2011)
(quoting Rippy ex rel. Rippy v. Hattaway, 270 F.3d 416, 422-23 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding
that social worker had absolute immunity including for actions taken during the underlying
investigation, when that investigation was “intimately related to the judicial phase of child
custody proceedings”).
After eliminating the four Defendants entitled to absolute judicial immunity, the
Court is left with Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against two court-appointed attorneys (Cantrell
and Shelton), Ms. Tumbleson, and “Does 1-100.” But Plaintiff also fails to state a claim
against any of those Defendants. For example, to the extent that Plaintiff’s claims for
monetary damages are asserted against any state court officer or employee in his or her
official capacity, Plaintiff fails to state a claim because the Eleventh Amendment bars
recovery of such damages. “[T]he Juvenile Court is considered an arm of the state and
cannot be subject to a § 1983 or any other suit for monetary relief.” Meyers v. Franklin
Cnty. Court of Common Pleas, 81 Fed. Appx. 49, 55, 2003 WL 22718238, at *6 (6th Cir.

16

2003) (quoting Mumford v. Basinski, 105 F.3d 264, 269 (6th Cir.1997)). “[T]here is a
jurisdictional problem under the Eleventh Amendment.” See Chappel, No. 1:23-cv-728DRC-SKB, (Doc. 9 at 13 and 15, PageID 593-595) (discussing case law).
Plaintiff’s claims against her two prior court-appointed attorneys are also subject
to summary dismissal. “It is firmly established that a defense attorney, regardless of
whether he is a public defender or private attorney, is not a state actor for purposes of §
1983.” Jordan v. Kentucky, No. 3: 09 CV 424, 2009 WL 2163113, at *4 (6th Cir. July 16,
2009), citing Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 102 S.Ct. 445 (1981).
That leaves only Defendant Tumbleson and the John/Jane Does. Ms. Tumbleson
is alleged to be a County employee and Plaintiff purports to sue her in both official and
individual capacities. But all actions allegedly taken by Ms. Tumbleson were in connection
with the state court custody proceedings, and/or at the express direction of the Juvenile
Court. Arguably, even a local government official could claim quasi-judicial immunity for
actions undertaken at the express direction of a state court in connection with that court’s
custody determination.
In addition, although the Eleventh Amendment applies only to state employees
rather than to county officials, see No. 1:23-cv-728, Doc. 9 at PageID 595, n.5, Defendant
Tumbleson cannot be held liable in her official capacity absent the assertion of a clear
county “policy or custom” that caused the injury. See infra at n. 8; Monell v. Dep't of Soc.
Servs., 436 U.S. at 694. Not only does Plaintiff fail to connect Ms. Tumbleson’s actions
with a clearly stated Adams County policy or custom (as opposed to a juvenile court
policy), but she has once again failed to name the Adams County Board of

17

Commissioners – the same fatal defect noted by Magistrate Judge Litkovitz in the
dismissal of her first complaint.9
Plaintiff also has failed to state a sufficient claim against Ms. Tumbleson because
the sum of her allegations are that: (1) Defendant lacks the proper licensing credentials
(Doc. 1-1, ¶ 60, PageID 19); (2) Defendant insisted that Plaintiff report to the court rather
than the health department for a drug screen in October 2023 (Id., ¶¶ 64-67); and (3)
Defendant canceled Plaintiff’s appointments and reported her as non-compliant to the
court (id., ¶¶ 69-70). Plaintiff does not explain how such actions violated Plaintiff’s
constitutional due process rights. To the extent Plaintiff is basing her claims against
Tumbleson solely on some type of violation of a state licensing statute or regulation, she
fails to state a claim because § 1983 can only remedy a violation of federal or
constitutional law. See Lewellen v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville, 34 F.3d 345, 347 (6th Cir.
1994) (“Unless a deprivation of some federal constitutional or statutory right has occurred,
§ 1983 provides no redress even if the plaintiff's common law rights have been violated
and even if the remedies available under state law are inadequate”).
Last, Plaintiff appears to have included no allegations at all against any of the
“Does 1-100” who allegedly acted under color of state law. Identifying who harmed the
plaintiff and how they did so is a “basic pleading essential” required to state a claim. Wells
v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989); see also Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 507
Fed. Appx. 543, 547 (6th Cir. 2012) (courts “are not required to conjure up allegations not
pleaded or guess at the nature of an argument.”). “The Sixth Circuit ‘has consistently held
that damage claims against government officials arising from alleged violations of

9

Yet another difficulty for Plaintiff is mootness, insofar as she seeks injunctive relief from two judicial officers,
two former attorneys, and a GAL who are no longer involved in the state court custody case.

18

constitutional rights must allege...facts that demonstrate what each defendant did that
violated the asserted constitutional right.’” Reid v. City of Detroit, No. 18-13681, 2020 WL
5902597, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 5, 2020) (quoting Lanman v. Hinson, 529 F.3d 673, 684
(6th Cir. 2008)) (emphasis in original). That is, Plaintiff must show that the alleged
violation of his constitutional rights “was committed personally” by the defendant. Id.
(emphasis in original); Heyerman v. Cty. of Calhoun, 680 F.3d 642, 647 (6th Cir. 2012)
(persons sued in their individual capacities under § 1983 are liable only for their own
unconstitutional behavior) (citations omitted).
3. Grounds for Precluding Repetitive Litigation
In No. 1:23-cv-728-DRC-SKB, the undersigned suggested that Plaintiff’s second
lawsuit could be dismissed based on non-mutual claim preclusion, reasoning that her
“new and improved” claims should be foreclosed by her first complaint. “From well before
our country's founding, judicial tribunals have recognized the need for doctrines like claim
preclusion (or ‘res judicata’) and issue preclusion (or ‘collateral estoppel’) to protect the
finality of their judgments and prevent parties from relitigating the same disagreement in
perpetuity.” CHKRS, LLC v. City of Dublin, 984 F.3d 483, 490 (6th Cir. 2021). But in
dictum, Judge Cole expressed disagreement with the viability of the doctrine of nonmutual claim preclusion. See No. 1:23-cv-728-DRC-SKB, (Doc. 9 at n.9, PageID 597598); contrast, generally, Randles v. Gregart, 965 F.2d 90, 93 (6th Cir. 1992) (per curiam)
(upholding dismissal of pro se litigant’s successive complaint against new defendants,
applying doctrine of nonmutual claim preclusion). As discussed, greater identity of
defendants exists between Plaintiff’s current complaint and her second complaint than
existed between her first and second pleadings. But even if claim preclusion does not

19

strictly apply due to the dismissal of the second complaint without prejudice rather than
on the merits,10 the undersigned nevertheless recommends that Plaintiff’s third complaint
be dismissed as duplicative under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In addition, the undersigned
concludes that Plaintiff should be expressly warned at this juncture that any further
complaints that she files in this Court concerning the same subject matter may be
considered to be vexatious, and may result in both the dismissal of her lawsuit “with
prejudice” and the imposition of prefiling restrictions as a sanction.
“[I]n rare circumstances,...a district court may use its inherent power to dismiss
with prejudice (as a sanction for misconduct) even a case over which it lacks jurisdiction.”
See Ernst v. Rising, 427 F.3d 351, 367 (6th Cir. 2005) (cleaned up, citations omitted);
Revere v. Wilmington Finance, 406 Fed. Appx. 936, 937 (6th Cir. 2011); Jones v. United
States, 2021 WL 981298, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. March 16, 2021) (dismissing frivolous case
with prejudice notwithstanding lack of subject matter jurisdiction). Given that the abovecaptioned lawsuit is the third filed by Plaintiff based on the same subject matter and as to
which summary dismissal is recommended, it is fair to consider whether Plaintiff’s course
of conduct already warrants dismissal “with prejudice” or some other form of sanction.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court may summarily dismiss repetitive
litigation as frivolous or malicious without regard to whether a prior dismissal was with or
without prejudice. Unfortunately, the amount of time required to determine whether a new
complaint is duplicative or repetitive is often quite significant. This case, requiring close
review of three separate complaints and hundreds of pages of exhibits by (to date) five

10

In addition to criticizing the fact that Plaintiff’s prior litigation was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, Judge
Cole was critical of the application of res judicata because Plaintiff’s second complaint identified a different
set of defendants. By contrast, the instant complaint identifies six of the same Defendants as were named
in her second lawsuit.

20

different judicial officers and associated court staff, illustrates that point. Each successive
new complaint increases the burden on scarce judicial resources since each new
complaint must be compared in painstaking detail to each prior version, along with the
Court’s prior analysis in each case.
Thankfully, summary dismissal of repetitious complaints is not the only tool in the
judicial toolbox. When a litigant either fails or refuses to comprehend the basis for the
prior dismissals and continues to file additional lawsuits subject to dismissal on the same
grounds, a federal court may deem that litigant to be vexatious and impose an appropriate
sanction. See Tropf v. Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co., 289 F.3d at 938-940 (affirming
imposition of monetary sanctions and injunction that prohibited plaintiffs from filing any
civil

lawsuit

in

federal

court

that

included

similar

claims

without

written

permission); Feathers v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 141 F.3d 264, 269 (6th Cir.1998) (“There
is nothing unusual about imposing prefiling restrictions in matters with a history
of repetitive or

vexatious

litigation.”); Filipas

v.

Lemons,

835

F.2d

1145

(6th

Cir.1987); Stewart v. Fleet Financial, 229 F.3d 1154, 2000 WL 1176881 (6th Cir. Aug. 10,
2000) (Table) (upholding sanctions against pro se litigant who had repeatedly attempted
to collaterally attack foreclosure and eviction, and was using the judicial system to harass
and punish anyone who had anything to do with those actions). See also, generally Matter
of Chaban, Case No. 2:17-cv-11139, 2017 WL 2544346 (E.D. Mich. June 13,
2017) (directing plaintiff to “show cause” under Bankruptcy Rule 8020 why the court
should not sanction him for filing a fifth frivolous appeal of a bankruptcy court order).
In part because Plaintiff has not yet been warned that filing duplicative lawsuits
may be considered to be vexatious, the undersigned recommends that the Court

21

summarily dismiss this repetitive third case without prejudice. At the same time, Plaintiff
should be warned at this time that, should she persist in filing another case concerning
the same subject matter, it will be dismissed with prejudice as a sanction for her
misconduct. In sum, Plaintiff should be forewarned that filing any future complaint based
on the same custody proceedings is likely to result in a finding that she is a vexatious
litigant who should be made subject to prefiling restrictions.
V. Conclusion and Recommendations
For the reasons stated, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. Plaintiff’s new civil complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B);
2. In the alternative, should a reviewing court determine that any jurisdiction
exists, Plaintiff’s federal claims should be dismissed with prejudice based on
her attempts to sue Defendants who are immune from suit, as well as her failure
to state any claim, while any remaining state court claims should be dismissed
without prejudice;
3. Plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order
and for a stay of state court proceedings (Docs. 5, 6) should be DENIED, either
on the merits for the reasons stated, or alternatively as moot in light of the
recommended dismissal of her complaint.

s/Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge

22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
DAWN CHAPPEL,

Case No. 1:24-cv-318

Plaintiff,

Hopkins, J.
Bowman, M.J.

v.
MAGISTRATE DAVID HUNTER, et al.,
Defendants.

NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to this Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of
the filing date of this R&R. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely
motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of
the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of
the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN (14)
DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

23