Nolen v. Cash et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
THOMAS TERRAIL NOLEN 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 6:21-cv-06151-SOH-MEF
SHERIFF MIKE CASH
(Hot Spring County, Arkansas);
CAPTAIN JOSH LINGO;
DEPUTY RIDINGS;
DEPUTY DILLON D. LEDBETTER 	DEFENDANTS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge, referred
this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint in this case. Under §
1915A,0F
1 the Court is required to screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Arkansas Division of Correction Cummins Unit,
but his claims center on interactions with Hot Spring County law enforcement. Plaintiff filed his
initial Complaint against a long list of Defendants on November 18, 2021. 	(ECF No. 1). 	The
Court entered an Order the same day directing Plaintiff to both file a completed in forma pauperis
(IFP) application and an Amended Complaint. 	(ECF No. 3). 	Plaintiff submitted his IFP
application on November 29, 2021, and was granted IFP status on November 30, 2021. (ECF Nos.
5, 6). He did not, however, submit an Amended Complaint. After two orders from the Court and
1 Enacted as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).
Case 6:21-cv-06151-SOH Document 56 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
returned mail (ECF Nos. 8, 10, 12), Plaintiff submitted an Amended Complaint. The Court notes
that, in Response to an Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff stated that he had never received an Order
directing him to submit an Amended Complaint. 	(ECF No. 11). 	Plaintiff submitted that First
Amended Complaint on March 11, 2022. (ECF No. 13). The Court then entered another Order
directing Plaintiff to submit a Second Amended Complaint to address deficiencies in the First
Amended Complaint. 	(ECF No. 14). 	This process was repeated in May and June 2022. 	(ECF
Nos. 16, 17, 18, 20). Plaintiff submitted his Fourth Amended Complaint on July 8, 2022. (ECF
No. 20). Plaintiff indicated that he had filed two other cases related to this one prior to filing this
case, identifying them as follows: Nolen v. Cash, Case No. 6:21-cv-06092-SOH-BAB (denial of
medical care) and Nolen v. Ledbetter, Case No. 6:20-cv-06112-RTD-BAB (excessive force).
The Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint underwent preservice screening as required by
the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and the screening Report and Recommendation was filed on
August 24, 2022. 	(ECF No. 24). 	In the Report and Recommendation, the undersigned noted
concern that there was overlap between his excessive force claims in his Fourth Amended
Complaint and Nolen v. Ledbetter, Case No. 6:20-cv-06112. 	The allegations were somewhat
vague, however, and out of an abundance of caution at that early stage of the case, it was
recommended that the excessive force claims against Sheriff Cash, Chief Deputy Tolleson, and
Officer Dickson remain for further review. (Id. at 7). It was also recommended that the denial of
medical care claims against the same Defendants remain. 	(Id. at 11). 	This Report and
Recommendation was adopted on February 19, 2025. (ECF No. 28). The undersigned entered an
initial Service Order on March 24, 2025. 	(ECF No. 29). 	Summons to Defendant Dickson was
returned unexecuted on July 17, 2025. (ECF No. 40). Summons to Defendants Cash and Tolleson
were returned executed the same day. (ECF No. 41). When Defendants Cash and Tolleson failed
to enter Answers, two Show Cause Orders were entered. (ECF Nos. 46, 47). To date, no Answer
Case 6:21-cv-06151-SOH Document 56 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
has been filed by either. Service to Defendant Dickson has not been successful, and the time for
Plaintiff to provide service information for him has passed. (ECF No. 42).
While service was being attempted, Plaintiff filed several motions to amend his Fourth
Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 32, 36, 38). These motions were denied because they were not
submitted in compliance with the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF Nos. 34, 37, 39). Plaintiff
then filed a Motion to Amend his Fourth Amended Complaint that complied with the Local Rules.
(ECF No. 43). Plaintiff’s request to add several of his claims was denied because they had already
been addressed and dismissed with prejudice in Nolen v. Ledbetter, Case No. 6:20-cv-06112 and
Nolen v. Cash, Case No. 21-cv-06092. 	(ECF No. 50 at 3). 	Although his allegations were still
somewhat vague, Plaintiff was permitted to submit a Fifth Amended Complaint concerning his
Claim One in the proposed Amended Complaint. (Id. at 4-5).
In Claim One of his Proposed Fifth Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names Sheriff
Mike Cash, Chief of Police Dannie Taber, and Hot Spring County. He identifies the date in
question as December 2019 to October 2020. (ECF No. 43-1 at 5). He alleges as follows:
Mike 	Cash 	and 	Donnie 	Taber 	failed 	to 	train 	and 	supervise
subordinates 	and 	to 	ensure 	policy 	and 	procedure 	was 	being
followed. They allowed illegal searches with no warrants. Sheriff
Cash and Donnie Tabor did nothing to investigate a notarized
complaint taken by Officer Dickson concerning the assault and
battery by Deputy Ridings and denial of medical care on or about
March 2020. On or about March 2020 I spoke to Sheriff Cash and
Donnie Taber in person about the abuse and lack of medical care. I
was assured by both officials the behavior would stop. 	They did
nothing to stop another beating on 7/13/2020 by Deputy Ledbetter.
(ECF No. 50 at 5). For his official capacity claim, Plaintiff alleges an unconstitutional custom has
become a widespread practice that Hot Spring County does not train or supervise its employees.
He further alleges that excessive force is covered up and medical care is denied. Finally, he alleges
that employees are not disciplined. (Id. at 6).
Case 6:21-cv-06151-SOH Document 56 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Plaintiff filed his Fifth Amended Complaint on December 17, 2025, naming Defendants
Sheriff Mike Cash, Deputy Dillon D. Ledbetter, Deputy Ridings, and Captain Josh Lingo as
Defendants. 	(ECF No. 55 at 2-3). 	He provides considerably more detail in the Fifth Amended
Complaint, as well as changing Defendants from his proposed Complaint. 	Plaintiff raises two
claims. 	He identifies the timeframe in question for both as December 20191F
2 through October
2020. 	(Id. at 4, 7). 	Plaintiff characterizes Claim One as failure to train and supervise, and
negligence. (Id. at 4). He names Defendants Cash and Lingo as the Defendants involved. (Id.).
He lists the places of occurrence for this claim as the Relax Inn, Hot Spring County Detention
Center, and Home Residence. 	(Id.). 	His official capacity portion of this claim states that Hot
Spring County has an unconstitutional and widespread practice of not training and supervising
employees. (Id. at 5). He alleges the custom is so widespread that even the sheriff and judicial
officials are committing constitutional violations, and “these officials have friends and colleagues
that govern over civil suits to dismiss complaints to further cover-up wrongdoing.” 	He further
alleges that “[e]xcessive force is a practice by officers, while sheriffs are alleged, false statements,
concealing facts, witness tampering, aiding and abetting and more.” (Id.).
Plaintiff characterizes Claim Two as one for racial discrimination, racial profiling, illegal
detention, and a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 	(Id. at 7). 	He names the Defendants
Ledbetter and Ridings in this claim. (Id.). He lists the occurrence as taking place at the Relax Inn
and Home Residence. (Id. at 5). His official capacity portion of this claim states there is a custom
and widespread practice in Hot Springs to avoid hiring black police officers, parole officers, and
judicial officials. As a result, black people in the county are:
harassed by police, excessive force and discriminated against,
Blacks don’t have a voice to speak when their constitutional rights
are violated in court. 	Hot Spring Co. has friends and colleagues.
2 For Claim Two, Plaintiff listed December 2020 – October 2020, but the text of the claim clearly
indicates that this was an error, as he discusses December 2019 incidents. (ECF No. 55 at 7).
Case 6:21-cv-06151-SOH Document 56 Filed 01/23/26 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Local law enforcement to help cover up wrongdoing and dismiss
civil lawsuits. The lack of Black police officers allows white police
officers and parole officers, judicial officials, to treat black civilians
however they want.
(Id. at 9).
As the factual support for his claims, Plaintiff revisits at length his arrests at the Andy’s
Restaurant parking lot on December 26, 2019, the Relax Inn on January 5, 2020, his parent’s yard
(home residence) on July 13, 2020, and various other arrests in 2020. He also revisits claims of
denial of care for his alleged injuries after some of these arrests. (Id.). The details of these arrests,
as well as his medical encounter and incarceration timeline, are provided in detail in Nolen v.
Ledbetter, Case No. 6:20-cv-06112 and Nolen v. Cash, Case No. 21-cv-06092, and will not be
repeated here. Plaintiff expressly acknowledges that he is repeating facts from both cases in his
Fifth Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 55 at 6, 8). Both prior cases were dismissed with prejudice
at the summary judgment stage.
Plaintiff proceeds against all Defendants in their official and individual capacities. (Id. at
5, 9). He seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. at 11). Plaintiff seeks $10,000,000.00.
He also asks that the Court order a criminal investigation into law enforcement in Hot Spring
County. (Id.).
II. 	ANALYSIS
Based on the additional details provided in Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint, it is now
clear that his claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. It is well-settled that a court may
dismiss a case sua sponte based upon the doctrine of res judicata:
if a court is on notice that it has previously decided the issue
presented, the court may dismiss the action sua sponte, even though
the defense has not been raised. This result is fully consistent with
the policies underlying res judicata: it is not based solely on the
defendant's interest in avoiding the burdens of twice defending a
suit, but is also based on the avoidance of unnecessary judicial
waste.
Case 6:21-cv-06151-SOH Document 56 Filed 01/23/26 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 412 (2000) supplemented 531 U.S. 1 (2000) (quoting United
States v. Sioux Nation, 448 U.S. 371, 432 (1980) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) (citations omitted);
see also Hanig v. City of Winner, S.D., 527 F.3d 674, 676 (8th Cir. 2008) (“When the second action
seeks redress for the same wrong, res judicata bars relitigation of a claim or an issue ‘actually
litigated or which could have been properly raised and determined in a prior action.’”).
In Elbert v. Carter, 903 F.3d 779 (8th Cir. 2018), the Court outlined the requirements of
res judicata. It said:
Under federal common law, the doctrine of res judicata, or claim
preclusion, applies when (1) the first suit resulted in a final judgment
on the merits; (2) the first suit was based on proper jurisdiction; (3)
both suits involve the same parties (or those in privity with them);
and (4) both suits are based upon the same claims or causes of
action.
Id. at 782. Res judicata prevents “the relitigation of a claim on grounds that were raised or could
have been raised in the prior suit.” Lane v. Peterson, 899 F.2d 737, 741 (8th Cir. 1990).
The first two requirements are met. There is no question this Court had federal-question
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims brought under § 1983 in Nolen v. Ledbetter, Case No. 6:20-cv-
06112 and Nolen v. Cash, Case No. 21-cv-06092. Nor is there any question that both cases resulted
in a final judgment on the merits when they were dismissed with prejudice at the summary
judgment stage.
The third requirement is whether the current Defendants are in privity with the Defendants
in the two prior cases. In Elbert, the Eighth Circuit discussed the concept of privity. It said:
The term “privity” once referred to specific substantive legal
relationships, but it has come to be used more broadly, as a way to
express the conclusion that nonparty preclusion is appropriate on
any ground. 	The term “privity” is not used to describe various
relationships between litigants that would not have come within the
traditional definition of that term. ... “[P]rivity” is “merely a word
used to say that the relationship between the one who is a party on
Case 6:21-cv-06151-SOH Document 56 Filed 01/23/26 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
the record and another is close enough to include that other within
the res judicata.”
Elbert, 903 F.3d at 782 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). In Fowler v. Wolff, 479
F.2d 338 (8th Cir. 1973) the Eighth Circuit found “the relationship of [the two new defendants] to
the parties sued in the [previous] action is so close that their addition cannot change the fact that
this present action is repetitious and barred by res judicata.”
In Nolen v. Ledbetter, Case No. 6:20-cv-06112, Hot Spring County Deputies Ledbetter and
Ridings were the final Defendants in the case. This case involved claims of excessive force for
Plaintiff’s arrests at the Andy’s Restaurant parking lot on December 26, 2019, the Relax Inn on
January 5, 2020, and his parent’s yard (home residence) on July 13, 2020. In Nolen v. Cash, Case
No. 21-cv-06092, Hot Spring County Sheriff Mike Cash and Captain Josh Lingo were named as
Defendants. 	Also named was Dr. Darrell Elkins, the contract medical provider for the county.
This case involved a claim of delay and denial of medical care for Plaintiff after the arrest in his
parent’s yard (home residence) on July 13, 2020, and other arrests in March 2020, and April 2020.
The Defendants in Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint are Sheriff Mike Cash, Captain Josh
Lingo, Deputy Dillon D. Ledbetter, and Deputy Ridings. As these are the same Defendants named
in the two prior cases, all worked for Hot Spring County law enforcement at the time of the
incidents in question, and all were involved in one or more of the incidents, privity is established.
The final requirement is that both cases be based on the same claims or causes of action.
Claims are the same if they arise out of the same transaction and share the same nucleus of
operative facts. Poe v. John Deere Co., 695 F.2d 1103, 1107 (8th Cir. 1982). “A court ruling bars
relitigation of actions arising out of the same transaction or factual setting.” Id. Plaintiff admits
that he is relying on the same events previously alleged in the Nolen v. Ledbetter, Case No. 6:20-
cv-06112 and Nolen v. Cash, Case No. 21-cv-06092 to provide the factual basis for his current
claims. 	Thus, his claims in this case arise from the same factual setting, and involve the same
Case 6:21-cv-06151-SOH Document 56 Filed 01/23/26 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
Defendants, as in the prior two cases. Plaintiff should have properly raised the claims made in his
Fifth Amended Complaint in one of the prior cases, but he failed to do so. See, Brown v. Felsen,
442 U.S. 127, 131 (1979) (“Res judicata prevents litigation of all grounds for, or defenses to,
recovery that were previously available to the parties, regardless of whether they were asserted or
determined in the prior proceeding.”). 	Plaintiff’s claims in his Fifth Amended Complaint are,
therefore, barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint (ECF No.
55) be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Referral Status: This case should not remain referred because all matters have been
recommended for dismissal in this Report and Recommendation.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 	The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
DATED this 23rd day of January 2026.
/s/
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:21-cv-06151-SOH Document 56 Filed 01/23/26 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>