First Amended Complaint with jury demand; diagnosis terms blacked out on this copy¶

Bass v. TTUHSC, No. 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV (N.D. Tex.) · Dkt. 14 · 2025-12-11 · PDF

Text extracted from the PDF; scanned pages were read by OCR. The PDF is the authoritative copy.

FILED - USDC - NDTX - LU

Case
Document 14
Filed 12/11/25
Case5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION

KEVIN N. BASS, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Civil Action No. 5:25-cv-00244-H

§

TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY §
HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER; §

AMANDA McSWEEN, in her individual §
and official capacities as University §
Registrar; §
LAUREN COBBS, M.D., M.Ed., FACP, §

in her individual and official capacities §
as Senior Associate Dean for Student §

Affairs (SOM); §
SIMON WILLIAMS, Ph.D., in his §
individual and official capacities as §

Senior Associate Dean for Academic §
Affairs (SOM); §
TAMARA MANCINI, M.Ed., in her §
official capacity as Director of Student §
Disability Services; §

Page
PageID 237
Filed1 of 22
12/11/25
Page 1 of 22

PageID 237

DEC 11 2025 PM4:20

R

Case5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document
14 Page
Filed
12/11/25
Case
Document 14 Filed
12/11/25
2 of 22
PageID 238Page 2 of 22

MIA MYERS, in her official capacity as §
Associate Managing Director, Student §
Financial Aid; §

JOHN/JANE DOE, in his/her official §
capacity as TTUHSC ADA Title II §
Coordinator; §

LORI RICE-SPEARMAN, Ph.D., in her §
official capacity as President, Texas §

Tech University Health Sciences Center; §
DARRIN D·AGOSTINO, D.O., MPH, MBA, §

in his official capacity as Executive §
Vice President and Provost / Chief §

Academic Officer, Texas Tech University §
Health Sciences Center; §

DARREN G. GIBSON, in his individual §
capacity; §
JENNIFER WILSON, M.D., in her §
individual capacity; §

RACHEL FORBES, MBA, BS, in her §
individual capacity; and §
DOES 2·10, in their individual §
capacities, §
§
Defendants. §

PageID 238

Case
Document 14 Filed
12/11/2514
Page 3 of
22 PageID
239
Case5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document
Filed
12/11/25

Page 3 of 22

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Amended as a Matter of Course under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1))

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES,

DECLARATORY (28 U.S.C. §§ 2201·02), AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
Plaintiff used generative artificial intelligence to assist in drafting this brief. Plaintiff has
reviewed the brief and is responsible for its content.
INTRODUCTION

1. This civil action challenges Defendants' disability-based denial of meaningful access to a
high-stakes student disciplinary hearing; selective departures from written procedures;
publication of stigmatizing accusations tied to a status-changing transcript notation; and
retaliation for protected speech and disability-rights activity.

2. Plaintiff seeks: (a) damages and declaratory relief under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
against TTUHSC as a federal funds recipient; (b) prospective relief under Title II of the ADA

against appropriate officials pursuant to Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908); and (c)
damages and declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against individual capacity officials
for violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND AUTHORITY FOR RELIEF
3. This Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
4. Venue is proper in this District and Division under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)·(2) because a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred here and at
least one defendant resides or is found here.

5. Declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201·02 and Fed. R. Civ.
P. 57 and 65. Costs are authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1920; and, if counsel appears, reasonable
attorney's fees from counsel's appearance forward are authorized by 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988 and

12205 and 29 U.S.C. § 794a(b). Post judgment interest is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, REMEDIAL FRAMEWORK, AND EXHAUSTION

6. Plaintiff does not seek § 1983 money damages against TTUHSC or against officials in their
official capacities. See Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).
7. TTUHSC's receipt of federal funds waives Eleventh Amendment immunity for § 504
claims. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d7; Pace v. Bogalusa City Sch. Bd., 403 F.3d 272, 280·89 (5th Cir.

PageID 239

Case
Document 14 Filed
12/11/2514
Page 4 of
22 PageID
240
Case5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document
Filed
12/11/25

Page 4 of 22

2005) (en banc). TTUHSC is an arm of the State of Texas and therefore a Title II "public

entity," 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(B), and a § 504 "program or activity," 29 U.S.C. § 794(b)(2)(A).
8. Plaintiff seeks prospective, nonmonetary relief under Title II against appropriate officials
with a sufficient enforcement connection under Ex parte Young. See Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub.
Serv. Comm'n of Md., 535 U.S. 635, 645-46 (2002).

9. Consistent with Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 142 S. Ct. 1562 (2022), and
Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002), Plaintiff does not seek punitive or emotional
distress damages under ADA/§ 504. He seeks economic losses and, where permitted,
nominal damages. Punitive damages are sought, if at all, only on § 1983 claims against
individual capacity defendants where allowed by law.
10. No administrative exhaustion is required for the Title II or § 504 claims pleaded here.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND TIMELINESS

11. The events at issue occurred primarily between December 2023 and January 2024, with
continuing effects thereafter.
12. Texas's two-year personal injury limitations period applies to § 1983, Title II, and § 504
claims. See Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 237-38 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc);
Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567, 576 (5th Cir. 2001). This action is timely.
PARTIES

13. Plaintiff Kevin N. Bass is a qualified individual with disabilities within the meaning of §
504 and Title II.

14. Defendant Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center ("TTUHSC") is a public entity
that receives federal financial assistance and is an arm of the State of Texas. It is therefore a
Title II "public entity," 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(B), and a § 504 "program or activity," 29 U.S.C. §
794(b)(2)(A). Federal funds proof includes TTUHSC's Title IV participation (Federal School
Code 016024), annual Single Audit reporting, and Texas Comptroller records showing
federal expenditures for agency 739.

15. Defendant Amanda McSween is TTUHSC's University Registrar. She is sued in her
individual capacity (damages under § 1983) and in her official capacity (prospective Title II
relief).
16. Defendant Lauren Cobbs, M.D., M.Ed., FACP, is Senior Associate Dean for Student Affairs

(School of Medicine). She is sued in her individual capacity (damages under § 1983) and in
her official capacity (prospective Title II relief).
17. Defendant Simon Williams, Ph.D., is Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs (School
of Medicine). He is sued in his individual capacity (damages under § 1983) and in his official

capacity (prospective Title II relief).

PageID 240

18. Defendant Tamara Mancini, M.Ed., is Director of Student Disability Services. She is sued
in her official capacity (prospective Title II relief).
19. Defendant Mia Myers is Associate Managing Director, Student Financial Aid. She is sued
in her official capacity (prospective Title II relief related to status reporting/holds
interfaces).
20. Defendant John/Jane Doe is TTUHSC's ADA Title II Coordinator (identity presently
unknown). He/she is sued in official capacity to implement injunctive relief.
20A. Defendant Lori Rice-Spearman, Ph.D., is the President of TTUHSC. She is sued in her
official capacity as an Ex parte Young defendant for purposes of implementing prospective
Title II relief. As President, she has overall executive responsibility for TTUHSC's academic
programs, student disciplinary processes, and compliance policies, and is empowered to
direct subordinate officials in implementing court-ordered changes to transcript-notation
practices, student-discipline procedures, and campus-access and CTW/ban
communications.
20B. Defendant Darrin D'Agostino, D.O., MPH, MBA, is TTUHSC's Executive Vice President
and Provost / Chief Academic Officer. He is sued in his official capacity as an Ex parte Young
defendant for purposes of implementing prospective Title II relief. As Provost and Chief
Academic Officer, he oversees TTUHSC's academic affairs?including the School of
Medicine's disciplinary framework and the Student Affairs, Registrar, Student Disability
Services, and Financial Aid units that control transcript and status notations and
accommodation implementation.
21. Defendant Darren G. Gibson is an attorney who served as the outside Hearing Officer for
Plaintiff's December 11, 2023 disciplinary hearing. TTUHSC retained Gibson to preside over
the hearing after the Student Conduct Board Chair delegated procedural authority to him.
While performing that delegated adjudicatory function, Gibson acted under color of state
law. He is sued in his individual capacity.
21A. Plaintiff sues Gibson in his individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the dueprocess and retaliation violations described in Counts 3 and 5.
21B. Defendant Jennifer Wilson, M.D., is Vice Dean for Medical Education at TTUHSC's
School of Medicine Covenant Branch Campus and an Associate Professor in the Department
of Pediatrics. She is sued in her individual capacity (damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). At all
relevant times, she acted under color of state law as an official of a public medical school.
21C. Defendant Rachel Forbes, MBA, BS, is Assistant Vice Dean for Student Affairs for the
Covenant Branch Campus at TTUHSC's School of Medicine and serves as a Senior Career
Advisor. She is sued in her individual capacity (damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). At all
relevant times, she acted under color of state law as an official of a public medical school.

Case5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document
12/11/25
Case
Document 14
Filed 14
12/11/25Filed
Page 5 of
22 PageIDPage
241 5 of 22

PageID 241

Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV

Document 14

Filed 12/11/25

Page 6 of 22

PageID 242

22. Defendants DOES 2-10 are presently unidentified TTUHSC officials who participated in

the events alleged below. They are sued in their individual capacities.
DEFENDANTS (IDENTIFICATION & ROLES FOR RELIEF)
23. For clarity regarding implementation of prospective relief, the institutional roles
implicated include:

· TTUHSC · entity defendant for § 504 (federal funds recipient).
· AMANDA McSWEEN · University Registrar: transcript issuance/notations/holds.
· LAUREN COBBS, M.D., M.Ed., FACP · Senior Associate Dean for Student Affairs (SOM):
student discipline logistics, hearing administration.

· SIMON WILLIAMS, Ph.D. · Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs (SOM):
emergency removal/academic affairs process triggers.
· TAMARA MANCINI, M.Ed. · Director, Student Disability Services: ADA effective
communication/modifications execution.

· MIA MYERS · Associate Managing Director, Student Financial Aid: Title IV
(R2T4)/enrollment status reporting and holds workflows.
· ADA TITLE II COORDINATOR · 28 C.F.R. § 35.107 coordination of Title II compliance
and central implementation of injunctive relief.
FEDERAL·STATE COORDINATION / NONINTERFERENCE

24. Plaintiff maintains a separate, exhibit free state action seeking only a prompt, public

name-clearing/FERPA amendment hearing and neutral annotation; no damages are sought
there. The federal claims here (§ 504/Title II/§ 1983) seek distinct remedies and do not

require this Court to enjoin or review any state court order. No relief requested here would
interfere with any state proceeding or order, and abstention is unwarranted.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Disability notice and requested accommodations
25. Before a December 11, 2023 disciplinary hearing, Plaintiff provided written notice of a

[REDACTED] disability [REDACTED], lodged accommodation requests
through Student Disability Services ("SDS"), and supplied a neuropsychological evaluation
recommending communication supports, including limited attorney-assisted questioning to
cue/clarify. On December 8, 2023, Plaintiff and counsel called SDS to initiate
accommodations under TTUHSC HSC OP 77.14, which recognizes a Letter of

Accommodation (LOA) as the university-approved mechanism and provides that, once an
LOA is issued, no further proof should be required and classroom accommodations should
be implemented within one week (five business days).

Case
Document 14 Filed
12/11/2514
Page 7 of
22 PageID
243
Case5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document
Filed
12/11/25

Page 7 of 22

26. Officials acknowledged the SDS process on the record. The Hearing Officer admitted
only a redacted evaluation·excluding the accommodations section as "outside the Board's
scope"·and categorically barred counsel from questioning witnesses directly even as a

communication aid. This contravened OP 77.14's effective communication framework and
Plaintiff's documented functional limitations (processing speed/executive function under
sustained adversarial sessions; need for orderly turn-taking; benefit from written copies;

predictable breaks).
B. Hearing structure and departures from written rules
27. The hearing lasted roughly fourteen hours and involved ten witnesses plus Plaintiff.
Published hearing materials set 10-minute openings, 30 minutes per witness per side, and
confirmed recording protocols; yet the presider barred contemporaneous objections;
required counsel's questions to be submitted in writing; asserted unilateral authority to
limit Plaintiff's questioning for "relevance"; and applied time limits and sequencing
asymmetrically against Plaintiff, contrary to the published rules promising equal time limits,
Board questions first, and no objections.
27A. In a recorded November 2023 meeting, Student Conduct Administrator Dr. David
Trotter told Plaintiff that any consolidated hearing would be "broken into sections" in a way
that maximized Plaintiff's protection: first, the Board would hear and decide Plaintiff's
grievances and mistreatment complaints against faculty and administrators; only after
those decisions were made would the Board move to the conduct complaints and negative
evaluations. Dr. Trotter stated that hearing the grievances first "would provide [Plaintiff]
the most protection" and that it "wouldn't make sense" to hear "the conduct stuff" first and
only later consider the mistreatment concerns. Plaintiff prepared for the December 11,
2023 hearing in reliance on this promised format, but as described in ¶27 and ¶42, TTUHSC

instead stacked hours of adverse testimony and conduct allegations before allowing any
meaningful opportunity for Plaintiff to present his grievances or a coherent response.

27B. In the same November 2023 conversations, Dr. Trotter told Plaintiff that TTUHSC was
willing to resolve all pending matters only if Plaintiff withdrew from the School of Medicine
with no possibility of re-enrollment and that, absent such a withdrawal, "they want this to
move to a hearing." Plaintiff declined to withdraw and proceeded to prepare for the
December 11, 2023 hearing in reliance on the grievance-first structure described in ¶27A.
Plaintiff alleges that this withdrawal ultimatum, coupled with the later abandonment of the
promised format, underscores the coercive and pretextual nature of the process.
28. On information and belief, TTUHSC retained an outside Hearing Officer for Plaintiff's
proceeding who lacked neutrality and operated under constraints that materially favored
the administration, including restricting Plaintiff's questioning and applying time limits
asymmetrically, contrary to published procedures.
C. Evidence gating and record access

PageID 243

29. Defendants consolidated matters without consent; denied requested separate hearings;
restricted defense witnesses; accepted late/redacted evidence favorable to the
administration while excluding comparable defense evidence.
30. TTUHSC controlled the recording, which contained apparent discontinuities. Access to
the "official" record was delayed and limited to in-person audio review. Plaintiff seeks
native audio/video files with hashes, access logs, and chain of custody.

Case5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document
14 Page
Filed
12/11/25
Case
Document 14 Filed
12/11/25
8 of 22
PageID 244Page 8 of 22

D. "Direct threat" framing without individualized assessment
31. The Hearing Officer invoked ADA "direct threat" concepts but did not conduct an
individualized assessment grounded in current medical knowledge or best available
objective evidence, nor did he/she consider whether reasonable modifications could
mitigate any risk. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.139(b); Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 649-50
(1998); EEOC v. Exxon Corp., 203 F.3d 871, 873-74 (5th Cir. 2000).
31A. Plaintiff's November 3, 2023 social-media post·the catalyst for the Emergency
Removal and Criminal Trespass Warning·was a short philosophical reflection on mortality
that did not name TTUHSC, identify any person, or call for or threaten violence. TTUHSC's
Threat Assessment and Interim Suspension paperwork nonetheless characterized the post
as a "threatening" or "potential threat," recounted that some faculty and staff reported
"concern for personal safety," and invoked Code provisions on "physical harm or threat of
harm," while at the same time identifying no weapon, plan, target, or prior violent conduct
and checking "No" in response to prompts about criminal charges such as weapons or
terroristic threats.

31B. TTUHSC's own conduct is inconsistent with any genuine belief that Plaintiff posed an
imminent safety risk: throughout the same period, administrators continued to meet with

him in ordinary settings; Plaintiff attended the December 11, 2023 hearing without any
search of his person or belongings or visible special security measures; and the Emergency
Removal and Criminal Trespass Warning quietly expired without any requirement that
Plaintiff demonstrate he was "no longer a threat" or comply with remedial conditions.

Plaintiff alleges that, considered together with the lack of an individualized, evidence-based
risk assessment, these facts support an inference that "direct threat" labels were invoked as
a disciplinary framing rather than as a good-faith application of ADA standards.

31C. TTUHSC's own written findings repeatedly describe Plaintiff's tweet only in terms of
how some community members "perceived" it·using qualifiers such as "perceived threat,"
"potential threat," and "may fear for ... safety"·rather than as an actual threat or expression
of intent to harm anyone. The Student Conduct Board expressly characterized the tweet as
"disruptive and reasonably perceived as a potential threat to members of the TTUHSC
community," and in the Interim Suspension/Threat Assessment Questionnaire officials
again marked that there were no criminal weapons, assault, or terroristic-threat charges. In
light of the tweet's philosophical content and the absence of any identified plan, weapon, or
target, Plaintiff alleges that treating it as a Code-of-Conduct "threat of harm" was

PageID 244

Case5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document
14 Page
Filed
12/11/25
Case
Document 14 Filed
12/11/25
9 of 22
PageID 245Page 9 of 22

unreasonable and, when combined with the Emergency Removal, CTW, and publications
described below, materially stigmatizing.
E. Protected speech and retaliation context
32. Plaintiff publicly criticized COVID19 policies and filed grievances·speech and

petitioning on matters of public concern.
33. Within a week of administrators urging him to stop posting online, professionalism
charges were issued; an interim removal/trespass notice referenced his speech "context";
and witnesses reported being coached. Class-wide messaging on January 7, 2024 explicitly
told recipients to "check his Twitter," underscoring retaliatory animus and selective
enforcement.

33A. Plaintiff maintains a public social-media presence where he comments on scientific,
medical, and social issues. His commentary has, at times, drawn intense online backlash,
including hostile messages and public calls for TTUHSC, which peaked during this period, to
discipline or remove him from the medical school. Plaintiff alleges that TTUHSC officials

were aware of this backlash and reputational pressure, monitored his social-media activity,
and discussed the controversy surrounding his posts, and that these concerns contributed
to their decision to characterize his November 3, 2023 post as a "threat" and to invoke

emergency-removal and disciplinary procedures, rather than treating it as protected
commentary.
F. Publication and ongoing harm
34. Before the hearing, administrators issued a campus-wide "BOLO" message. After the
hearing, administrators circulated a January 7, 2024 class-wide broadcast stating that the
class was "one student lighter" and directing recipients to "check his Twitter," followed by a

recall request. TTUHSC later placed an "Administrative Dismissal Effective 01-11-2024"
notation on Plaintiff's transcript. Plaintiff suffered significant educational, economic, and
reputational harm. Evidence includes (i) a January 1, 2024 public post stating "we did it,
Kevin Bass' medical committee voted to expel him," (ii) the class-wide broadcast and recall,
and (iii) BOLO/ban echoes such as "not letting this student onto campus," attributed to
agency communications.
34A. On or about October 16, 2025, TTUHSC issued an official transcript bearing the
"Administrative Dismissal Effective 01-11-2024" notation described in ¶34. Third-party
recipients reported adverse decisions after receiving transcripts with that notation, and
ongoing transcript issuance constitutes continued publication by the agency.

34B. Plaintiff further alleges that TTUHSC has selectively emphasized certain entries in his
education record that portray him in a negative light, including a disputed pediatrics
clerkship evaluation and threat-assessment materials, while omitting or downplaying more
favorable evaluations and other contextual information. Plaintiff is informed and believes
that this selective presentation has contributed to a stigmatizing narrative about him in the

PageID 245

Case
Document 14 Filed
12/11/2514
Page 10
of 22 PageID
246
Case5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document
Filed
12/11/25

Page 10 of 22

medical community, including public commentary by many physicians suggesting that
Plaintiff had been the subject of sexual harassment complaints and had made threats of
violence before being expelled from medical school. Plaintiff denies that this narrative

accurately reflects his conduct or the underlying events and alleges that it flows directly
from the challenged cluster of education record entries maintained and disseminated by
TTUHSC.

34C. Plaintiff further alleges that the stigmatizing narrative described in ¶34B has been

echoed and amplified in online harassment, where he has received hostile messages
invoking themes of dangerousness, "threats," or sexual-misconduct rumors tied to his
dismissal. He contends that this amplification illustrates the ongoing reputational impact of

the challenged transcript notation and related education-record entries and underscores
the need for a corrective, name-clearing process.
G. Exclusion and campus access restrictions (status change)
35. TTUHSC issued an Emergency Removal and campus ban·stating Plaintiff was not
allowed on HSC property during the investigation·and a Criminal Trespass Warning that
required police coordination even to access his child's school on TTU property. These
restrictions coincided with the stigmatizing publications described above.
35A. On November 4, 2023, the Assistant Vice Dean for Student Affairs emailed more than
thirty recipients·including Covenant Branch campus and affiliated hospital gatekeepers·
stating: "do not allow Kevin Bass into the Covenant Branch office nor badge him in at any of
the hospitals," pending "further notice." On information and belief, several recipients were
non-TTUHSC clinical-affiliate personnel, reflecting an agency directive that barred access
before any adjudication under TTUHSC's own student-discipline procedures and circulated
beyond the University.
H. Individual defendants' personal participation (non-exhaustive)
36. Lauren Cobbs: Oversaw the student discipline process and the selection/instructions of
the Hearing Officer; denied or ratified denials of separate hearings and evaluator testimony;
enforced or ratified procedures that limited Plaintiff's ability to be heard; urged Plaintiff to
curtail protected online speech; and participated in derogatory public communications
about Plaintiff.

36A. Jennifer Wilson: Plaintiff alleges that Vice Dean Jennifer Wilson, without discussion or
an attempt at remediation, filed multiple professionalism complaints against him that
mischaracterized his words and conduct; that he filed grievances against her; that she was a

primary advocate for imposing a Criminal Trespass Warning and campus ban by asserting
she was afraid of Plaintiff and providing extensive testimony in support of that sanction;
and that, after the CTW issued and while grievances were pending, she failed Plaintiff on his
pediatrics clerkship without a clear academic basis, in retaliation for his protected speech
and petitioning activity.

PageID 246

Case
Document 14 Filed
12/11/2514
Page 11
of 22 PageID
247
Case5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document
Filed
12/11/25

Page 11 of 22

36B. Rachel Forbes: Plaintiff alleges that Assistant Vice Dean for Student Affairs Rachel
Forbes urged Plaintiff to curtail protected online speech; authored and sent the November

4, 2023 email to Covenant Branch campus and affiliate-hospital gatekeepers stating that
they should not permit Plaintiff into the Covenant Branch office or badge him in at any
hospital pending further notice; that she authored and sent the January 7, 2024 class-wide

broadcast stating that the class was "one student lighter" and directing classmates to check
Plaintiff's Twitter for further updates, followed by a recall attempt; that she disseminated or
coordinated BOLO and ban communications; and that she on several occasions filed or
prompted physical threat and professionalism complaints against Plaintiff in response to
his speech and grievances.
37. Simon Williams: Initiated or ratified interim removal measures; invoked "direct threat"
framing without individualized assessment; approved consolidation; urged Plaintiff to
curtail protected online speech; and enforced or ratified procedures that limited Plaintiff's
ability to be heard.

37A. Plaintiff further alleges that all six formal grievances he filed against faculty and staff
for learner mistreatment were reviewed and rejected by four different administrators·
Drs. Simon Williams, Thomas Tenner, J. Edward Bates, and Allan Haynes·each of whom
concluded that there was "no evidence" of misconduct or that his grievances themselves
violated policy. Plaintiff contends that this 0-for-6 outcome, coupled with Williams's dual
role in both grievance review and Emergency Removal decisions, is probative of
institutional bias and retaliatory motive rather than neutral evaluation of his complaints.
38. Amanda McSween: Published and/or caused to be published the transcript notation
"Administrative Dismissal Effective 01112024"; communicated or caused the

communication of the status to third parties; and maintained transcript holds/notations
despite Plaintiff's objections and pending review. Evidence of third party reliance includes
denials of opportunities upon receipt of transcripts bearing the notation
39. Darren G. Gibson: As outside Hearing Officer, Gibson presided over the disciplinary
hearing; barred real-time objections; organized the hearing in a manner contrary with the
Student Handbook; filtered or refused Plaintiff's questions; cut Plaintiff's questioning short
while permitting extensive administrative questioning; and admitted administrative
evidence while excluding comparable defense evidence, all contrary to published
procedures and despite notice of Plaintiff's communication-related disabilities.
39A. On information and belief, the materials and charges presented to Gibson·including
the Emergency Removal and Criminal Trespass Warning referencing the "context" of
Plaintiff's social-media posts, the professionalism charges that issued within days of
administrators urging Plaintiff to stop posting online, and Plaintiffs filed grievances against
faculty and administrators·made plain that Plaintiff's public commentary and petitioning
activity were central to the case. Knowing that the proceeding was, in substantial part, a
response to Plaintiff's protected speech and grievances, Gibson used his delegated
procedural authority in a manner that selectively constrained Plaintiff's ability to defend

PageID 247

Case5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document
14 Page
Filed
12/11/25
Page 12 of 22
Case
Document 14 Filed
12/11/25
12 of 22
PageID 248

and contextualize that speech while allowing TTUHSC broad latitude to present and rely on

it, thereby furthering the retaliatory campaign described in ¶¶ 32·33.
40. Tamara Mancini (official capacity): Received Plaintiff's SDS notice and requests; failed to
give primary consideration to Plaintiff's requested auxiliary aids; and did not implement
reasonable modifications to ensure effective communication at the hearing under OP

77.14's LOA and implementation benchmarks.
41. Mia Myers (official capacity): Maintains Title IV/enrollment status reporting and related
holds; has operational control over processes implicated by transcript notations and status
communications and is a necessary official capacity implementer of prospective relief.

Following the status change, TTUHSC cancelled $3,524.00 in aid, revoked $20,118.11 in
scholarship, and posted a $24,316.56 balance·all flowing from the stigmatizing dismissal
status and notation.

I. Dismissal determination and scope
42. TTUHSC's Board letter states the hearing lasted approximately 14 hours and that the
Board "reviewed ... additional documentation ... including a medical assessment," yet the
accommodations content was excluded as "outside the Board's scope," denying a
meaningful chance for disability-appropriate presentation.
42A. The Student Conduct Board that unanimously recommended Plaintiff's non-academic
dismissal was chaired by Associate Dean of Admissions Dr. Felix Morales and included four
additional voting members·two faculty physicians and two fourth-year medical students
·while TTUHSC delegated day-of-hearing procedural authority to outside attorney Darren

G. Gibson of Littler Mendelson P.C. Plaintiff alleges that Gibson, acting under color of state
law, selectively allowed late-added administration witnesses (including Drs. Vo, Thomas,
and Erwin) while denying Plaintiff's requested witnesses such as his neuropsychological

evaluator, Dr. Andrew Wierzchowski, and Student Conduct Administrator Dr. David Trotter,
and that these structural and evidentiary choices, layered on top of the ADA-related

communication barriers described above, materially increased the risk of erroneous
deprivation.
J. Publication logs, recipients, and continuing effects

43. Plaintiff has compiled publication logs and will seek metadata/listserv expansion logs
and meeting artifacts (calendars, Zoom/Teams recordings) to identify recipients and
authenticate channels (email, LMS/Canvas, Teams/Slack, GroupMe/WhatsApp, and other
studentfacing platforms). These materials support both the publication element of

"stigmaplus" and the need for targeted, publicationonly expedited discovery.
K. Ongoing violations; basis for prospective relief and expedited preservation
44. Plaintiff faces ongoing harm from current policies and practices governing transcript
notations and status communications, access to and preservation of hearing records, and

PageID 248

Case5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document
14 Page
Filed
12/11/25
Page 13 of 22
Case
Document 14 Filed
12/11/25
13 of 22
PageID 249

PageID 249

rules that will govern any renewed adjudication or credentialing communications. Targeted
preservation and Rule 26(d) expedited discovery (publication only) are warranted to
capture message headers, listserv logs, audit trails, and collaboration platform exports and
to enable corrective notices after judgment.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

(Each Count incorporates ¶¶ 1·44 by reference.)
COUNT 1 · Rehabilitation Act § 504 (Damages & Declaratory Relief) · Against TTUHSC

45. Section 504 prohibits disability discrimination in any ·program or activity· receiving
federal financial assistance. 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), (b)(2)(A). Elements: (1) disability; (2)
otherwise qualified; (3) exclusion from participation in, denial of benefits of, or
discrimination under a federally funded program; and (4) exclusion by reason of disability
(and, to the extent § 504 is construed to require it, solely by reason of disability, as
construed in the Fifth Circuit). See Delano-Pyle v. Victoria Cnty., 302 F.3d 567, 574 (5th Cir.
2002).
46. Monetary relief requires intentional discrimination, satisfied at least by deliberate

indifference to known, necessary accommodations. See Bennett-Nelson v. La. Bd. of Regents,
431 F.3d 448, 454·55 (5th Cir. 2005); Cadena v. El Paso Cnty., 946 F.3d 717, 724·27
(2020); Windham v. Harris Cnty., 875 F.3d 229, 235·37 (2017).

47. TTUHSC·through officials with authority to provide accommodations and to rectify
denials, including SDS Director Mancini and Senior Associate Deans Cobbs and Williams,
and through the Hearing Officer·had actual knowledge of Plaintiff·s disability-related

communication needs yet (a) excluded the accommodations section of his evaluation; (b)
barred attorney-assisted questioning as a communication aid; (c) applied time limits and
filters asymmetrically; and (d) refused modest schedule/format modifications·denying
meaningful access to the adjudication. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(a)(2) (effective
communication); § 35.139 (direct threat). This deliberate indifference proximately caused
economic losses including Title IV balance due, lost scholarship funds, lost stipends, exam
and application fees, and delays in credentialing.
48. Plaintiff seeks economic damages proximately caused by the violations and, where
permitted, nominal damages. No punitive or emotional distress damages are sought under §
504.

COUNT 2 · ADA Title II (Prospective Relief) · Against Official-Capacity Defendants (ADA
Coordinator; Registrar McSween; Senior Associate Deans Cobbs and Williams; SDS Director
Mancini; Financial-Aid Official Myers; President Rice-Spearman; Provost/EVPAA
D·Agostino)

49. This claim arises under 42 U.S.C. § 12132 and is enforceable through 42 U.S.C. § 12133.
Title II obligates public entities to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or

Case
Document 14 Filed
12/11/2514
Page 14
of 22 PageID
250
Case5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document
Filed
12/11/25

Page 14 of 22

procedures when necessary to avoid discrimination, unless doing so would fundamentally
alter the service. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)(i).
50. Title II also requires effective communication and obligates the entity to give primary
consideration to the individual's requested auxiliary aids. 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(a)(2). Primary

consideration means honoring the individual's chosen auxiliary aid unless an equally
effective alternative is available or provision would cause a fundamental alteration or

undue financial/administrative burden. Where "direct threat" is asserted, the entity must
conduct an individualized assessment based on current medical knowledge or best
available objective evidence and consider whether reasonable modifications can mitigate
risk. 28 C.F.R. § 35.139(b); Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 649·50 (1998); EEOC v. Exxon

Corp., 203 F.3d 871, 873·74 (5th Cir. 2000).
51. Defendants failed to provide reasonable modifications and effective-communication
measures necessary for Plaintiff's participation (e.g., limited attorney-assisted questioning
as a communication aid; equitable time allocations keyed to documented limitations;
admission of evaluator testimony; timely disclosure; and record-access protocols). As
summarized in ¶23, each named official has a sufficient enforcement connection for Ex
parte Young relief: the Registrar controls transcript notations and issuance/holds; the
Senior Associate Deans oversee hearing administration and emergency-removal processes;
the SDS Director implements ADA accommodations across proceedings; the Financial-Aid
official controls status reporting and holds interfacing with Title IV systems; and the ADA
Coordinator orchestrates Title II compliance, 28 C.F.R. § 35.107. For complete prospective
relief, the President (appointment of a hearing official/committee) and Provost/EVPAA
(hearing scheduling and FERPA-amendment processing) possess direct enforcement
connections under TTUHSC student-records policy and have therefore been added in their
official capacities as Ex parte Young defendants.
52. Plaintiff seeks a narrowly tailored injunction requiring compliance with §§ 35.130(b)(7)
(i), 35.160, and 35.139(b) in any ongoing or future proceedings, including: (a) designation
of the ADA Coordinator as a centralized point of contact to implement accommodations

across Student Affairs/Registrar/Academic Affairs; (b) preservation and access to native
audio/video files and associated hashes, access logs, and chain-of-custody records; (c)
FERPA-aligned protections; (d) procedures ensuring that transcript notations and status

communications are generated, maintained, and communicated in a manner consistent with
Title II going forward; and (e) if TTUHSC conducts any renewed adjudication concerning the
events alleged herein, it must do so under an ADA-compliant framework that includes equal
time allocation, reasonable auxiliary aids, disclosure timelines, and access to a complete,
continuous record. See Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 531·34 (2004); United States v.
Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 159 (2006).
52A. The injunction should also require primary consideration for Plaintiff's requested
auxiliary aids·including limited attorney-assisted questioning as a communication aid,
predictable breaks, CART/closed captioning, and written copies of verbal information·
consistent with OP 77.14 and 28 C.F.R. § 35.160.

PageID 250

Case5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document
Filed
12/11/25
Case
Document 14 Filed
12/11/2514
Page 15
of 22 PageID
251

Page 15 of 22

52B. TTUHSC's own Student Education Records policy (HSC OP 77.13), related privacy
notices, and Student Handbook already recognize students' rights to seek amendment or
annotation of education records believed to be inaccurate, misleading, or maintained in
violation of privacy rights, and describe a process in which the Provost (or designee)
arranges a hearing, the President (or designee) appoints an impartial hearing official or
committee, and, if no change is ordered, the student's written statement must be

maintained with, and disclosed with, the contested portion in all future disclosures. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants Rice-Spearman and D'Agostino have not performed these
ministerial duties in his case despite his written requests, and that the prospective relief
requested here would simply require them to implement TTUHSC's existing

correction/annotation framework in a manner consistent with Title II and the Due Process
Clause.

COUNT 3 · Procedural Due Process (Fourteenth Amendment) via 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Damages & Declaratory Relief) · Against Cobbs, Williams, Gibson, and DOES 2·10

(individual capacities)
53. At all relevant times, Defendants Cobbs, Williams, Gibson, and DOES 2·10 acted under

color of state law as officials of a public university. Students facing serious disciplinary
sanctions are entitled to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, evaluated under
Mathews v. Eldridge's balancing. See Dixon v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ., 294 F.2d 150,
157·59 (5th Cir. 1961); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334·35 (1976); Goss v. Lopez,
419 U.S. 565 (1975). This case concerns disciplinary, not academic, sanctions. Cf. Bd. of
Curators v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978).
54. Plaintiff alleges both (i) a liberty interest in his good name, reputation, and honor, the
deprivation of which was accompanied by a change of legal status (loss of student status
and a transcript notation), and (ii) to the extent recognized under Texas law and TTUHSC
policies, a statecreated property interest in continued enrollment. See Hughes v. City of
Garland, 204 F.3d 223, 226·28 (5th Cir. 2000); Bledsoe v. City of Horn Lake, 449 F.3d 650,
653·55 (5th Cir. 2006). The liberty interest and Mathews risk-of-error theories are
primary.
55. Plaintiff does not claim a categorical right to attorney-led cross examination. See
Plummer v. Univ. of Houston, 860 F.3d 767 (5th Cir. 2017); Van Overdam v. Texas A&M
Univ., 43 F.4th 522 (5th Cir. 2022). Rather, Plaintiff challenges selective departures from
written rules and communication-related restrictions that, given his disabilities, denied a
meaningful opportunity to be heard and materially increased the risk of erroneous
deprivation at minimal administrative cost. Cf. Walsh v. Hodge, 975 F.3d 475, 484·85 (5th
Cir. 2020).
56. Defendants amplified the risk of error by (i) prohibiting contemporaneous objections;
(ii) categorically barring counsel's limited questioning as an auxiliary communication aid;
(iii) imposing asymmetric time limits and surprise witnesses; (iv) favoring administrative

PageID 251

Case5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document
14 Page
Filed
12/11/25
Page 16 of 22
Case
Document 14 Filed
12/11/25
16 of 22
PageID 252

evidence while gating defense evidence; and (v) restricting and delaying access to a
complete, continuous record.
57. Clearly Established Law / Qualified Immunity. At the time, it was clearly established that

public universities imposing serious disciplinary sanctions must provide notice and a
meaningful opportunity to be heard under Dixon and Mathews, and officials may not
employ arbitrary hearing restrictions that materially increase the risk of erroneous
deprivation at minimal administrative cost. On the facts alleged, Defendants are not entitled
to qualified immunity at the pleading stage.

COUNT 4 · "StigmaPlus" (Fourteenth Amendment Liberty Interest) via 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Damages & Declaratory Relief) · Against McSween, Forbes, and DOES who published
stigmatizing statements (individual capacities)

58. At all relevant times, Defendants McSween, Forbes, and DOES 2·10 who published or
caused publication of the statements at issue acted under color of state law as officials of a
public university. Reputation alone is not a protected interest, but a claim lies where the

government publishes materially false, stigmatizing facts in connection with an alteration of
legal status. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976); Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977); Hughes,
204 F.3d at 226·28; Bledsoe, 449 F.3d at 653·55.

59. As described in ¶¶34, 34A, and 35·35A, Defendants (i) sent a January 7, 2024 class-wide
broadcast stating that the class was "one student lighter than last week" and directing
recipients to "check his Twitter," followed by a recall attempt; (ii) placed an "Administrative
Dismissal Effective 01-11-2024" notation on Plaintiff's official transcript that third parties
used to deny opportunities; and (iii) disseminated campus-wide and affiliate-hospital
BOLO/ban and exclusion directives suggesting Plaintiff was dangerous. These publications

coincided with the loss of student status and conveyed dangerousness and unfitness. The
statements and insinuations were materially false and stigmatizing, and Plaintiff alleges
falsity and causation, satisfying stigma-plus elements. Evidence includes the publication

logs and header captures described in ¶34 and ¶43, as well as reports of third-party
reliance in ¶34A.

59A. In particular, as alleged in ¶35A and ¶36B, Defendant Forbes authored the November
4, 2023 exclusion email instructing Covenant Branch campus and affiliate-hospital
gatekeepers not to permit Plaintiff into the Covenant Branch office or badge him into any

hospital pending further notice, extending the stigmatizing "threat" narrative to
non-TTUHSC clinical-affiliate personnel.
60. Plaintiff requested a name-clearing hearing on October 19, 2025 and demanded

confirmation by October 21, 2025, with a hearing within 14 days; Defendants failed to
provide the hearing. Post-publication hearings are proper in the Fifth Circuit. See Wells v.
Hico Indep. Sch. Dist., 736 F.2d 243 (5th Cir. 1984); In re Selcraig, 705 F.2d 789 (5th Cir.
1983); White v. Thomas, 660 F.2d 680 (5th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and
damages.

PageID 252

Case
5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 14 Filed
12/11/25 Page
PageID 253
Case
5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document
1417 of 22
Filed
12/11/25

Page 17 of 22

PageID 253

60A. The prior December 11, 2023 consolidated disciplinary hearing did not supply the
required name-clearing process. It was not noticed or structured as a dedicated nameclearing proceeding; disability-related evidence, including the accommodations section of

Plaintiff's neuropsychological evaluation and testimony from his evaluator, was treated as
outside the Board's scope; attorney advisors were barred from directly questioning

witnesses even as a communication aid; and deliberations occurred off the record. Plaintiff
therefore had no meaningful opportunity in that earlier setting to create an on-the-record
account responding to the stigmatizing "threat" and professionalism narratives that
TTUHSC continues to disseminate.

60B. Clearly Established Law / Qualified Immunity. At the time of the events alleged, it was
clearly established that government officials may not publish materially false, stigmatizing
accusations in connection with an alteration of legal status without providing a meaningful

name-clearing hearing. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976); Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624
(1977); Hughes v. City of Garland, 204 F.3d 223, 226-28 (2000); Bledsoe v. City of Horn
Lake, 449 F.3d 650, 653-55 (2006). On the facts alleged, Defendants are not entitled to
qualified immunity at the pleading stage.
COUNT 5 - First Amendment Retaliation via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Damages, Declaratory &
Limited Injunctive Relief) - Against Cobbs, Williams, Gibson, Wilson, Forbes, and DOES 210 (individual capacities)
61. At all relevant times, Defendants Cobbs, Williams, Gibson, Wilson, Forbes, and DOES 2-

10 acted under color of state law as officials of a public university. Plaintiff must show (1)
protected speech; (2) an adverse action that would deter a person of ordinary firmness; and

(3) that his speech was a substantial or motivating factor. See Keenan v. Tejeda, 290 F.3d
252, 258 (5th Cir. 2002); Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287
(1977).
62. As alleged in ¶¶32-33 and 36A-36B, Plaintiff criticized public-health policy and filed

grievances; administrators urged him to stop posting; professionalism charges issued
within days; the interim-removal and trespass notice cited the "context" of his online
speech; and Wilson and Forbes helped drive CTW/campus-ban measures, exclusion
directives to affiliates, a failing pediatrics clerkship grade, and class-wide messaging ("check
his Twitter"). Temporal proximity, contemporaneous references to his posts, selective
departures from rules, and the retaliatory intent alleged in ¶¶36A-36B together plausibly
show causation.

62A. As further detailed in ¶39A, Hearing Officer Gibson was put on notice that the
disciplinary charges and interim-removal measures were tied to the "context" of Plaintiff's
online speech and grievances; he then used his delegated authority to impose one-sided

time limits, restrict and filter Plaintiff's questioning, and gate defense evidence in the very
proceeding convened to adjudicate those speech-linked accusations. These selective
restrictions-imposed while permitting expansive presentation of TTUHSC's narrativewould deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to criticize the institution

IMMEDIATE NEED FOR INTERIM RELIEF (Rule 65)
68. Plaintiff seeks a narrowly tailored preliminary injunction to prevent irreparable injury
pending judgment. The Canal Authority factors favor relief: (1) a substantial likelihood of
success on Count 4 (agency publication, request/denial of name-clearing hearing, transcript
notation) and Counts 1?2 (effective communication failures under OP 77.14 and Title II/§
504); (2) irreparable injury to professional reputation and training trajectory through
continuing publication and transcript notation; (3) the balance of equities favors preventing
further dissemination and ensuring a corrective process; and (4) the public interest favors
compliance with the Constitution and the ADA. See Canal Authority of the State of Florida v.

Case5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document
14 Page
Filed
12/11/25
Page 18 of 22
Case
Document 14 Filed
12/11/25
18 of 22
PageID 254

publicly or pursue grievances and were substantially motivated by Plaintiff's past and

ongoing protected speech and petitioning activity.

63. Plaintiff seeks damages and a narrow anti-retaliation injunction barring adverse action

for engaging in protected speech about this dispute, litigating this case, or filing/granting
public records requests·without restricting neutrally applied, lawful rules.

63A. Plaintiff intends to continue speaking publicly on the matters at issue and to request
records and accommodations, and he faces a credible threat of further retaliatory adverse
actions absent prospective injunctive relief.

64. Clearly Established Law / Qualified Immunity. It was clearly established that officials
may not take adverse action in retaliation for a student's protected speech on matters of
public concern, and that Mt. Healthy burdenshifting applies. On the facts alleged, Defendants

are not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage.

COUNT 6 · ADA Title II and § 504 Retaliation/Interference (Damages under § 504;
Prospective Relief under Title II) · Against TTUHSC (damages) and OfficialCapacity
Defendants (prospective relief)

65. The ADA and its regulations prohibit retaliation and interference against individuals
who request accommodations or oppose disability discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 12203; 28
C.F.R. § 35.134. The Title VI remedies incorporated by § 504 authorize damages against a

federal funds recipient; prospective relief is available against officials under Ex parte Young.

66. After Plaintiff notified SDS of his diagnoses and requested communication supports,
Defendants escalated adverse actions·including interim removal, selective rule

enforcement, gating of the accommodations content, and status-affecting transcript
notations·actions that would deter a reasonable person from engaging in ADA/§ 504
activity and are causally connected to Plaintiff's protected requests.

67. Plaintiff seeks (a) damages against TTUHSC for economic losses proximately caused by
retaliation; and (b) prospective injunctive relief under Count 2 to prevent further retaliation
or interference and to require Title IIcompliant processes going forward.

PageID 254

Case
Document 14 Filed
12/11/2514
Page 19
of 22 PageID
255
Case5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document
Filed
12/11/25

Page 19 of 22

PageID 255

Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572·73 (5th Cir. 1974). Where the current status quo itself inflicts
irreparable harm, courts may alter it to prevent injury.

69. Plaintiff requests the Court's straightforward Ex parte Young inquiry for prospective
relief against appropriate officials, limited to halting ongoing violations and setting a
prompt, ADA-compliant name-clearing process. See Verizon Md., Inc., 535 U.S. at 645·46.
Plaintiff is prepared to post a nominal bond in any amount the Court deems appropriate
under Rule 65(c).
69A. Pending judgment, the Court should (i) order the Registrar to annotate any issued
transcript with "Disputed; correction/annotation process pending," and after the ordered
name-clearing process, to append the corrective hearing record (or, if no change is ordered,
Plaintiff's statement) to future disclosures; and (ii) enjoin new or continued dissemination
of outbound CTW/ban/exclusion directives to affiliates, except as required by law, while the

name-clearing process proceeds.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in his favor and:
A. Declare that Defendants violated Plaintiff's rights under § 504, Title II, the First
Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment;

B. Award compensatory damages under § 504 (economic/educational losses·e.g., Title IV
balance of $24,316.56, lost scholarship $20,118.11, returned aid $3,524.00, fees/stipends,
and other provable economic losses·and, where permitted, nominal damages) against
TTUHSC; and award damages (and, where appropriate, punitive damages) under § 1983
against individual capacity defendants; no punitive or emotional distress damages are
sought under ADA/§ 504;
C. Issue a narrow anti-retaliation injunction barring adverse action for (i) litigating this
case, (ii) pursuing public records requests, (iii) requesting or using ADA/§ 504
accommodations, or (iv) engaging in protected speech about this dispute, while preserving
neutrally applied, lawful rules;
D. Enter prospective Title II relief (pursuant to Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), against
officials with a sufficient enforcement connection) requiring compliance with 28 C.F.R. §§
35.130(b)(7)(i), 35.160, and 35.139(b) in any ongoing or future proceedings; designate
TTUHSC's ADA Coordinator (28 C.F.R. § 35.107) as the point of contact to implement
accommodations across Student Affairs/Registrar/Academic Affairs with timelines and
reporting; and require primary consideration for requested auxiliary aids consistent with
OP 77.14's LOA framework and five-business-day implementation benchmarks;
E. Order Defendants to schedule and conduct a post-publication name-clearing hearing for
Plaintiff within 14 days of the Court's order, with reasonable accommodations as required
by Title II and § 504 and with a written decision issued promptly thereafter;

0

Case5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document
14 Page
Filed
12/11/25
Page 20 of 22
Case
Document 14 Filed
12/11/25
20 of 22
PageID 256

F. Order preservation (not collection at this time) of native hearing/recording files

(audio/video), associated hashes, access logs, and chain of custody records under a FERPAaligned protective order; and extend preservation to publications related ESI (classwide
broadcasts; listserv/LMS/Teams/Slack posts; social media-linked communications;
calendars/Zoom/Teams meeting artifacts; metadataonly CSVs showing
MessageID/from/to/cc/bcc/subject/thread IDs), including suspension of autodeletion and

documentation of systems searched. Plaintiff will file any request for expedited discovery as
a separate motion with a supporting brief consistent with the Local Rules. Such
preservation and any subsequent productions shall be subject to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 and a
FERPA-aligned protective order;
G. Order interim annotation/issuance of a corrected transcript pending the name-clearing
hearing (nonstigmatizing, statusneutral · e.g., "Disputed; correction/annotation process
pending"), identify prior transcript recipients, and, upon final judgment for Plaintiff on
Count 4 and/or ADA/§ 504 claims, expunge or amend the

"Administrative Dismissal Effective 01112024" notation and require TTUHSC to notify, at its
expense, all third parties to whom the notation or stigmatizing statements were
disseminated during the limitations period that the notation has been removed or
corrected.

H. Prospectively order that, if TTUHSC conducts any renewed disciplinary adjudication
concerning the events at issue, it must do so under an ADA-compliant framework (effective
communication and reasonable modification measures), with equal time allocation keyed to
functional limitations, fair disclosure timelines, and access to a complete, continuous, native
record;

I. Award taxable costs as permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and, if counsel appears, reasonable
attorney's fees from counsel's appearance forward under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988 and 12205 and
29 U.S.C. § 794a(b);
J. Award prejudgment interest as allowed by law and postjudgment interest under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1961; and

K. Grant all further relief the Court deems just and proper, including nominal damages
where compensatory damages may be unavailable. See Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 141 S.
Ct. 792, 802 (2021).
L. Pending judgment, enjoin dissemination to third party clinical affiliates of
CTW/ban/exclusion directives concerning Plaintiff, except as required by law; require any
necessary safety communications to be neutral and nonstigmatizing while the name-

clearing process proceeds.
COMPLIANCE NOTE

Filed with a completed Civil Cover Sheet (JS44) and Certificate of Interested Persons per
N.D. Tex. LR 3.1/3.2.

PageID 256

Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV

Document 14

Filed 12/11/25

Page 21 of 22

SERVICE NOTE

Service on TTUHSC must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(2) (or, via Rule 4(e)(1), any state

law method), and service on individuals must comply with Rule 4(e). If Plaintiff elects
service pursuant to state law under Rule 4(e)(1) and 4(j)(2), he will effect service on the
Texas Attorney General and on the agency as required.
JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a jury on all issues so triable.
DATED: December 11, 2025

Respectfully submitted,

[signature]
Kevin N. Bass

[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
Phone: 512-333-4092

Email: kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com

Pro Se Plaintiff

VERIFICATION (28 U.S.C. § 1746)

I, Kevin N. Bass, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct
based on my personal knowledge, except as to matters stated on information and belief,
and as to those I believe them to be true.

Executed on December 11, 2025.

PageID 257

Case5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document
14 Page
Filed
12/11/25
Page 22 of 22
Case
Document 14 Filed
12/11/25
22 of 22
PageID 258

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that, as of the date of filing this First Amended Complaint, no defendant has
appeared in this action and no additional service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 is required at
this time. Plaintiff will serve the summons and First Amended Complaint under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4.

Dated: December 11, 2025

PageID 258