Lyons v. Lyons et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
SUMMER DANIELLE LYONS,
on behalf of E.R.L, a minor child,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSHUA W LYONS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. 3:25-cv-00975
JUDGE CAMPBELL
MAGISTRATE JUDGE HOLMES
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Summer Danielle Lyons, a resident of Alabama, has filed a pro se Complaint (Doc. No. 1) on
behalf of herself and E.R.L., pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132; and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.
On October 1, 2025, the Court stayed this case pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37
(1971), pending the resolution of the related ongoing state-court proceedings. (Doc. No. 112). The
parties were ordered to notify the Court within 14 days after the resolution of the state-court
proceedings, at which point the case may be re-opened if appropriate. (Doc. No. 112 at PageID#
1296).
On October 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the October 1, 2025
Memorandum and Order (Doc. No. 112). (Doc. No. 113). By Order entered on December 8, 2025,
the Court determined that Plaintiff is not certified to pursue an interlocutory appeal and thus is unable
to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (Doc. No. 143).
Since the Court entered its October 1, 2025 Order staying and administratively closing this
case, Plaintiff has submitted at least thirty different filings. Presently pending before the Court is
Plaintiff’s Motion for Indicative Ruling Under Rule 62.1 (“Motion for Indicative Ruling”) (Doc. No.
114), Time Sensitive: Motion for Status Conference and Further Relief Based on Newly Discovered
Case 3:25-cv-00975 Document 144 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>

2
Jurisdictional Defects (“Time Sensitive Motion”) (Doc. No. 117), Motion to Lift Younger Stay (Doc.
No. 121), Motion to Correct Case Number (Doc. No. 124), Notice of Filing and Request for
Oversight: ADA Accommodation and State Attorney General Assistance (“Notice of Filing”) (Doc.
No. 125), Unified Motion for Leave to Amend Verified Complaint and for the Court to Exercise
Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Closely-Related State-Law Claims (Doc. No. 135), Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 136), Motion to Ensure Record Integrity and for Order Directing
Reconstruction or Explanation (Doc. No. 137), Motion to Lift the Younger Stay (Doc. No. 139),
Motion to Amend Defendants (Doc. No. 140), Motion for Recusal Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a) and
455(b)(1) (“Motion for Recusal”) (Doc. No. 141), and Urgent: Notice Pursuant to the Court’s Order
Regarding Status of Underlying State Case and Request for Guidance (Doc. No. 142).
Plaintiff’s Motion for Indicative Ruling (Doc. No. 114) will be denied, Plaintiff’s Motion to
Correct Case Number (Doc. No. 124) will be granted, and Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing (Doc. No. 125)
will be denied as moot. Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal (Doc. No. 141) will be held in abeyance
pending the Sixth Circuit’s ruling on Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal.
The remainder of Plaintiff’s Motions (Doc. Nos. 117, 121, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 142) will
be denied without prejudice.
I. MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING (DOC. NO. 114)
Plaintiff seeks an indicative ruling from this Court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1.
(Doc. No. 114). Pursuant to that rule, if a timely motion is made for relief that the Court lacks authority
to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending (such as here), the Court may
defer considering the motion, deny the motion, or state either that it would grant the motion if the
Court of Appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 62.1(a)(1)-(3). The Court DENIES the motion for an indicative ruling.
Case 3:25-cv-00975 Document 144 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>

3
II. MOTION TO CORRECT CASE NUMBER (DOC. NO. 124)
In her Motion to Correct Case Number (Doc. No. 124), Plaintiff asks this Court for leave to
correct a clerical error in her recent filings and asks that those filings reflect the correct case number
of 3:25-cv-00975. (Id. at PageID# 1550). Plaintiff asks that this Court “accept all previously filed
documents as properly filed under Case No. 3:25-cv-00975, and that the docket reflect the correct
case number going forward.” (Id. at PageID# 1550).
Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct Case Number (Doc. No. 124) will be GRANTED.
III. NOTICE OF FILING (DOC. NO. 125)
Plaintiff submitted her Notice of Filing (Doc. No. 125) “to supplement the record with the
attached ‘CORRECTED VERSION : Request for ADA Accommodation and Due Process Court
Watching and State Oversight.’” (Id. at PageID# 1553). Plaintiff further states, “This filing is made
to formally document Plaintiff’s request for disability accommodation and transparency in all ongoing
state court proceedings related to this matter.” (Id. at PageID# 1553-54). Plaintiff attached an email
she sent to Defendants within which she “request[ed] that an Assistant Attorney General . . . attend
or observe the upcoming remote hearing in Lyons v. Lyons, No. 83CC1-2021-CV-646 . . . .” (Id. at
PageID# 1556-57).
Because Plaintiff submitted this Notice of Filing to the Court simply to inform the Court of
her efforts to obtain various accommodations in the related state-court proceeding as opposed to move
the Court to act in any way, the Notice of Filing (Doc. No. 125) will be DENIED as moot.
IV. MOTION FOR RECUSAL (DOC. NO. 141)
In Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal (Doc. No. 141), she moves for the undersigned’s recusal on
the grounds that “the State of Tennessee’s incomplete and misleading representations concerning the
underlying state-court posture created an appearance of partiality and resulted in judicial impressions
that were formed on the basis of facts now shown to be materially inaccurate.” (Id. at PageID# 1766).
Case 3:25-cv-00975 Document 144 Filed 12/09/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>

4
Plaintiff argues that a “reasonable observer, aware of the full record now before the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, would question the Court’s ability to evaluate the matter anew
on remand.” (Id.). Plaintiff requests that the undersigned recuse himself pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
455(a) and 455(b)(1) upon remand from the Sixth Circuit.
Plaintiff’s request is not yet ripe. The Court will hold this Motion in abeyance pending the
Sixth Circuit’s ruling on Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal.
V. PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTIONS (DOC. NOS. 117, 121, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 142)
Neither Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 136) nor any of Plaintiff’s
remaining pending motions (Doc. Nos. 117, 121, 135, 137, 139, 140, 142) state or even suggest that
the related ongoing state-court proceedings are resolved, which was required by the Court’s
Memorandum and Order of October 1, 2025 (Doc. No. 112). In fact, Plaintiff’s exhibits (Doc. No.
117-5; Doc. No. 121 at PageID# 1518) suggest the opposite, that related state-court proceedings are
indeed ongoing.1 Since Plaintiff has not fulfilled the requirements for lifting the stay, Plaintiff’s
pending Motions (Doc. Nos. 117, 121, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 142) will be DENIED without
prejudice to refiling, if appropriate, at the resolution of the related state-court proceedings.
VI. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Motion for Indicative Ruling (Doc. No. 114) is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct Case Number (Doc. No. 124) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing (Doc. No. 125) is DENIED as moot.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal (Doc. No. 141) is held in abeyance pending the Sixth Circuit’s
ruling on Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal.
1 	Based upon the Court’s own research, the related state-court proceedings, Case No. 83CC1-2021-CV-
646, 	are 	still 	ongoing. 	https://sumner.tncrtinfo.com/cvCaseForm.aspx?id=9B27A84F-F4BF-4345-82A3-
5F146061012D&dsid=34d8dd1f (last visited Dec. 8, 2025).
Case 3:25-cv-00975 Document 144 Filed 12/09/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>

5
The remainder of Plaintiff’s Motions (Doc. Nos. 117, 121, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 142) are
DENIED without prejudice.
The parties shall notify the Court in writing within 14 DAYS after the resolution of the related
state-court proceedings.
Plaintiff is advised that frivolous and/or duplicative filings may subject her to sanctions by the
Court not limited to monetary sanctions or the dismissal of this case.
This case remains stayed and administratively closed.
It is so ORDERED.
____________________________________
WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-00975 Document 144 Filed 12/09/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>