Fields et al v. Cordell et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
DONALD L. FIELDS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
f/n/u CORDELL #401-0154, et al.,1
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:25-cv-00060
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Donald L. Fields, Quentin P. Oglesby, and Cartaze H. Ragland2 filed this pro se action
pursuant to 34 U.S.C. § 12601 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their civil rights. (Doc.
No. 1.) Plaintiffs Fields, Oglesby, Ragland, and Deborah Frierson filed a First and Second
Amended Complaint (Doc. Nos. 14, 16), and Plaintiffs Fields, Oglesby, and Ragland filed a Third
Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 19.) Additional action must be taken before this case can proceed.
Fields, Oglesby, and Ragland each filed their own IFP Applications on January 14, 2025.
(Doc. Nos. 2, 3, and 4.) On January 28, 2025, the Court denied each IFP Application without
prejudice due to a lack of sufficient information provided. (Doc. No. 8 at 1-2.)
1 Plaintiffs Fields, Oglesby and Ragland identified “Eli Bolt” as a Defendant in the original
Complaint (Doc. No. 1 at 1, 3.) That Defendant was then identified as “Officer E. Libolt” (and not
Officer Eli Bolt) in the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 19 at 1.) The Court therefore will use
the name provided in the more recent filing, “Officer E. Libolt”.
2 The Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 19) says, “All are residents of Davidson County,
Tennessee.” (Id. at 1.) The Complaint (Doc. No. 1) lists Hermitage, Tennessee as the address (Id.
at 2), and Oglesby’s amended IFP Application (Doc. No. 11) lists Smyrna, Tennessee as his
address (Id. at 5.) The Court has no clear indication of Plaintiffs’ addresses.
Case 3:25-cv-00060 Document 23 Filed 11/21/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>

2
Pending before the Court are amended IFP Applications (Doc. Nos. 10, 11, and 12)
submitted by Fields, Oglesby, and Ragland, as well as an Ex Parte Motion for Immediate Relief,
Protection, and Judicial Oversight (“TRO Motion”) (Doc. No. 22.)3
I. COMPLAINT (DOC. NO. 1) AND AMENDED COMPLAINTS
(DOC. NOS. 14, 16, & 19)
Plaintiffs Fields, Oglesby, Ragland, and Frierson filed a First and Second Amended
Complaint (Doc. Nos. 14, 16), and Plaintiffs Fields, Oglesby, and Ragland filed a Third Amended
Complaint (Doc. No. 19.) Deborah J. Frierson is a named Plaintiff in the Second Amended
Complaint (Doc. No. 16)4, but she is not named in the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 19.)
The operative pleading in this case is the Third Amended Complaint.
Considering Plaintiffs’ pro se status and the multiple complaints submitted in this case to
date,5 the Court will grant Plaintiffs an opportunity to submit a proposed Fourth Amended
3 Because Frierson, Ragland, and Fields request that the Court grant immediate injunctive relief,
the Court will interpret the Ex Parte Motion as a request for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”).
4 Even if the Second Amended Complaint was the operative pleading in this case (which it is not),
the Court would not consider Frierson as a Plaintiff because she did not sign the complaint. “Every
pleading . . . must be signed by . . . a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 11(a). “The United States Supreme Court interpreted Rule 11(a)’s signature requirement to ‘call
for a name handwritten . . . .’” Purvey v. Knoxville Police Department, 3:20-CV-317, 2021 WL
1840443, at *1 (E.D. Tenn. May 7, 2021) (quoting Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 764
(2001)).
5 Different Defendants are named in each Amended Complaint. (Doc. Nos. 14, 16 & 19.) The First
Amended Complaint names as Defendants A. Foote, Officer C. Taylor, Officer E. Libolt, George
H. Robinson, III, Jacqueline Robertson Greogory (who is also referred to in the docket entries as
“Jacqueline Robertson George”), D. Merginer, and C. Roell. (Doc. No. 14 at 2-4.) The Second
Amended Complaint names as Defendants George H. Robinson, III, Jacqueline Robertson
Gregory, and Freeman & Fuson. (Doc. No. 16 at 2.) The Third Amended Complaint names as
Defendants A. Foote, Officer C. Taylor, Officer E. Libolt, Metropolitan Nashville Police
Department, and C. Roell. (Doc. No. 19 at 1.)
Case 3:25-cv-00060 Document 23 Filed 11/21/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>

3
Complaint, if desired. Any proposed amended complaint must be filed no later than 30 DAYS of
the date of entry of this Order. All relevant claims, plaintiffs, defendants, and facts shall be set
forth in the proposed amended complaint; Plaintiffs cannot incorporate by reference their prior
allegations. Furthermore, all individuals who wish to be considered a Plaintiff to this action must
sign the proposed amended complaint with their handwritten signature as required by Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 11(a). The Court will not piece together multiple complaints.
If the Court does not receive a proposed Fourth Amended Complaint by the deadline, then
the Court will proceed with screening the Third Amended Complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2).
II. FILING FEE
On January 28, 2025, the Court denied without prejudice the first IFP Applications filed
by Plaintiffs Ragland, Oglesby, and Fields (Doc. Nos. 2, 3, & 4). (Doc. No. 8 at 2.) The Court
could not rule on the IFP Applications as submitted because each Plaintiff provided the same
residential address but did not report any mortgage or rent expenses, and none of the Plaintiffs
listed any assets, income, or expenses whatsoever. (Id. at 1-2.) The Court ordered Plaintiffs
Ragland, Oglesby, and Fields to each submit an amended IFP Application or, in the alternative,
pay their portion of the civil filing fee. (Id.)
Ragland, Oglesby, and Fields filed their amended IFP Applications on February 21, 2025.
(Doc. Nos. 10, 11, & 12.) The Court rules on each IFP Application as set forth below.
A. Ragland’s Amended IFP Application (Doc. No. 10)
Ragland’s amended IFP Application (Doc. No. 10) again presents the Court with various
deficiencies. In Ragland’s amended IFP Application (Doc. No. 10), he states that he receives
$924.00 in disability payments each month. (Id. at 1-2.) He also states he has no cash and no
Case 3:25-cv-00060 Document 23 Filed 11/21/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>

4
expenses. (Id. at 2, 4-5.) However, Ragland provides the Court with a residential address. (Id. at
5.) Therefore, it appears that Ragland has not provided the Court with complete information
regarding his living expenses as well as any other expenses. (Id. at 4-5.) This showing is
insufficient to demonstrate Ragland’s entitlement to proceed as a pauper. Cf. Washington v.
Berryhill, No. 18-2385-SHM-TMP, 2018 WL 11260461, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. June 5, 2018).
Accordingly, Ragland’s amended IFP Application (Doc. No. 10) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. Ragland MUST pay his portion6 of the civil filing fee of $405.00 when the amount
can be determined by the Court. This fee consists of a $350.00 filing fee and a $55.00
administrative fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)-(b); District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule,
https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/district-court-miscellaneous-fee-schedule,
provision 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023).
B. Oglesby’s Amended IFP Application (Doc. No. 11)
In Oglesby’s amended IFP Application (Doc. No. 11), he states that he now makes
$2,400.00 per month from his employment after previously making $14,000.00 per month. (Id. at
1.) Oglesby writes “N/A” for how much cash he or his spouse may have, states he has $100.00 in
a checking account, and states he has $1,854.06 in expenses per month. (Id. at 3-5.) Oglesby further
states his current employment is through a temporary service and not guaranteed to last. (Id. at 5.)
Oglesby does not list a vehicle as an asset, but he reports spending $800.00 per month in
transportation expenses. (Id. at 2-3.) Oglesby’s expenses amount to $1,854.00. (Id. at 3-4.)
6 When there are multiple plaintiffs in a case, each plaintiff is proportionately liable for any fees
or costs. See Talley-Bey v. Knebl, 168 F.3d 884, 887 (6th Cir. 1999); See In re Prison Litigation
Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1137-38 (6th Cir. 1997). Here, because it is unclear at this time how
many Plaintiffs are prosecuting this action, the Court cannot yet determine each Plaintiff’s portion
of the fee. If a timely Fourth Amended Complaint is filed and is signed by Fields, Ragland, and
Frierson, those three Plaintiffs will be required to split the civil filing fee equally. That is to say,
each will be responsible for paying one-third of the filing fee.
Case 3:25-cv-00060 Document 23 Filed 11/21/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>

5
Accordingly, Oglesby’s amended IFP Application (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED.
C. Fields’ Amended IFP Application (Doc. No. 12)
Fields’ amended IFP Application (Doc. No. 12) again presents the Court with various
deficiencies. In Fields’ amended IFP Application (Doc. No. 12), Fields states he has no income.
(Id. at 1-2.) Fields also states he has no cash. (Id. at 2.) However, Fields fails to complete multiple
sections of the amended IFP Application, including sections 2, 3, 4, and 7, and he provides the
Court with no spousal information. (Id. at 1-5.) Therefore, the Court lacks a full understanding of
Fields’ financial posture. This showing is insufficient to demonstrate Fields’ entitlement to proceed
as a pauper. Cf. Washington, 2018 WL 11260461, at *1.
Accordingly, Fields’ amended IFP Application (Doc. No. 12) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. Fields MUST pay his portion7 of the civil filing fee of $405.00 when the amount
can be determined by the Court.
III. TRO MOTION (DOC. NO. 22)
On October 24, 2025, Plaintiffs Frierson, Ragland, and Fields submitted a TRO Motion
(Doc. No. 22) requesting that this Court:
Grant immediate relief to prevent further harassment, obstruction, or interference
with property at 1209 Tulip Grove Road . . . [o]rder judicial review and forensic
investigation into unlawful filings and interference with Plaintiffs’ property . . .
[r]ecognize and affirm Plaintiffs’ legal ownership and access rights, including their
operation of D.F. & C.R., Inc. at this location . . . [a]ward compensatory and
punitive damages as appropriate . . . [e]nsure federal oversight of any future actions
affecting Plaintiffs’ rights . . . [g]rant any additional relief the Court deems just and
proper.
(Id. at 2-3.)
7 See supra n. 6.
Case 3:25-cv-00060 Document 23 Filed 11/21/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>

6
In this district, a movant seeking a temporary restraining order must comply with specific
procedural requirements. First, “any request for a TRO” must be made by written motion “separate
from the complaint.” M.D. Tenn. L.R. 65.01(a). Second, because the movant bears the burden of
justifying preliminary injunctive relief on the merits, Kentucky v. U.S. ex rel. Hagel, 759 F.3d 588,
600 (6th Cir. 2014), a TRO motion must be accompanied by a memorandum of law. M.D. Tenn.
L.R. 65.01(b). Third, the motion for a TRO must be supported, at a minimum, by “an affidavit or
a verified complaint.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A); M.D. Tenn. L.R. 65.01(b) (explaining that a
motion for a TRO “must be accompanied by a separately filed affidavit or verified written
complaint”). Finally, the moving party must certify in writing “any efforts made to give notice and
why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B); see also M.D. Tenn. L.R. 65.01(c)
(requiring “strict compliance” with this notice provision by pro se moving parties).
The TRO Motion does not comply with these rules. While Frierson, Ragland, and Fields
submitted a written TRO Motion separate from the Complaint, they failed to submit a supporting
memorandum of law, an affidavit or verified complaint, and failed to inform the Court of any
efforts made to give notice to Defendants and why it should not be required.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court cannot consider the TRO Motion as is.
Therefore, the TRO Motion (Doc. No. 22) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court encourages each party to review this Order to figure out who needs to take what
action in order to proceed. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of any or all claims and
putative plaintiffs.
Failure to keep the Court apprised of any change in Plaintiffs’ addresses of record may also
result in dismissal. M.D. Tenn. L.R. 41.01(b).
Case 3:25-cv-00060 Document 23 Filed 11/21/25 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>

7
Resources for pro se litigants 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-00060 Document 23 Filed 11/21/25 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>