The Federal Case — Bass v. TTUHSC¶

This page tracks the federal lawsuit as a procedural record. Every statement below is drawn from the court's docket or the face of the filed documents, which are linked at the bottom of the page.

The case¶

The claims¶

As set out in the operative First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 14, filed December 11, 2025) and described by the court's July 14, 2026 recommendation:

1. Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) — against TTUHSC
2. Americans with Disabilities Act, Title II — against officials in their official capacities
3. Procedural due process (Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983) — against individual-capacity defendants
4. "Stigma-plus" due process (Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983) — against individual-capacity defendants
5. First Amendment retaliation (42 U.S.C. § 1983) — against individual-capacity defendants

The proposed Second Amended Complaint (submitted July 28, 2026) restates these as seven counts, adds ADA/Section 504 retaliation-and-interference and a hearing-officer due process count, and states expressly: "Plaintiff does not seek reinstatement" (¶ 3) and that no § 1983 money damages are sought against TTUHSC or any official-capacity defendant (¶ 7).

Procedural timeline¶

The July 14, 2026 recommendation (Dkt. 54)¶

The magistrate judge's 57-page Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation states:

"For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the United States District Judge GRANT Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismiss without prejudice Bass's ADA claims and claim for declaratory relief under the RA. All other claims should be dismissed with prejudice."

— Dkt. 54 at 56

It further recommends denying leave to file a second amended complaint "because amendment would be futile" (Dkt. 54 at 56). The recommendation is not a final ruling; it goes to the district judge for de novo review of any portions to which specific objections are made (28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)).

The July 28, 2026 objections¶

Plaintiff submitted specific written objections together with a supporting brief raising eight numbered objections — including to the recommended dismissal of the Rehabilitation Act claims, the due process and First Amendment retaliation claims, and the futility finding — and a renewed motion for leave to file a conforming Second Amended Complaint. The supporting brief argues that the March 27, 2026 order (Dkt. 42) required the pleading to be shortened, and the recommendation then faulted the shortened pleading for missing facts.

The appendix filed with the objections includes excerpts of two outside-counsel contracts obtained through public-records work: Texas Tech University System Contract No. 2024-768-0010 and Texas Woman's University Contract No. 2026-731-0173, the latter's scope including "[s]erving as a hearing officer for employment and academic grievance hearings."

Current status¶

A ruling by the district judge on the recommendation and objections is pending.

Unknowns / what this page does not establish¶

• No hearing or ruling date has been set as far as this record shows.

Filings (PDF)¶

See also: Court Filings · The State Case & Appeal · Building the Case