Second Amended Verified Original Petition and Application for Temporary Injunction¶

Bass v. D'Agostino and McSween, No. DC-2025-CV-1817 / No. 15-26-00132-CV · 2025-12-11 · PDF

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

Filed 12/11/2025 11:30 PM
Sara L. Smith
Lubbock County - 237th District Court
Lubbock County, Texas

TB

DC-2025-CV-1817
CAUSE NO. ____________

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
KEVIN BASS, Plaintiff,
v.
Lori Rice-Spearman, Ph.D., in her official capacity as President of Texas Tech University Health
Sciences Center;
Darrin D’Agostino, D.O., M.P.H., M.B.A., in his official capacity as Provost and Executive Vice
President of Academics (Chief Academic Officer) of Texas Tech University Health Sciences
Center;
Amanda McSween, in her official capacity as Managing Director of Enrollment Services and
University Registrar of Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center;
Lauren Cobbs, M.D., M.Ed., F.A.C.P., in her official capacity as Senior Associate Dean for
Student Affairs (School of Medicine) of Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center;
Tamara Mancini, M.Ed., in her official capacity as Director, Student Disability Services and
ADA Coordinator of Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center;
Simon Williams, Ph.D., in his official capacity as Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
(School of Medicine) of Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center;
Mia Myers, in her official capacity as Associate Managing Director, Student Financial Aid, of
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center;
and John C. DeToledo, M.D., in his official capacity as Dean of the School of Medicine and
Executive Vice President for Clinical Affairs of Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center,
Defendants.
SECOND AMENDED VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION & APPLICATION FOR
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION (Prospective Official-Capacity Relief Only; No Damages)
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
Plaintiff Kevin Bass files this verified second amended petition, seeking prospective, officialcapacity relief only: (1) a prompt, public name-clearing/FERPA-amendment hearing; and (2)
annotation/correction of education records so future disclosures append the corrective hearing
record or, if no change is ordered, Plaintiff’s statement. No damages are sought.
I. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

12

1. Plaintiff Kevin Bass is a resident of Lubbock County, Texas.
2. Defendants are TTUHSC officials sued only in their official capacities for prospective relief:
a. Lori Rice-Spearman, Ph.D., President (appoints hearing official/committee for FERPA
amendment hearings).
b. Darrin D’Agostino, D.O., M.P.H., M.B.A., Provost & EVP of Academics (EVPAA)
(receives/acts on amendment requests and arranges hearings).
c. Amanda McSween, Managing Director of Enrollment Services & University Registrar
(custodian of academic records/transcripts; implements annotations/appendments).
d. Lauren Cobbs, M.D., M.Ed., F.A.C.P., Senior Associate Dean for Student Affairs, School of
Medicine (school-level implementation/scheduling coordination).
e. Tamara Mancini, M.Ed., Director, Student Disability Services and ADA Coordinator. She is
sued in her official capacity only. In addition to overseeing Student Disability Services and
coordinating ADA/§ 504 accommodations at the hearing, she serves as TTUHSC’s ADA
Coordinator for Title II purposes, with central, policy-level responsibility under 28 C.F.R. §
35.107 for coordinating and enforcing Title II compliance across TTUHSC, including ensuring
that grievance and hearing procedures—such as the requested name-clearing/FERPAamendment hearing—are accessible and ADA-accommodated.
f. Simon Williams, Ph.D., Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, School of Medicine
(school-level implementation for academic status processes).
g. Mia Myers, Associate Managing Director, Student Financial Aid. She is sued in her official
capacity only. Plaintiff alleges that her office maintains and transmits Title IV/enrollment-status
reporting and status-based holds, including those driven by the dismissal notation and transcript
entries challenged here, and that she is therefore a necessary official-capacity implementer to
ensure that any ordered correction/annotation of status is reflected consistently in financial-aid/
status interfaces and third-party reporting.
h. John C. DeToledo, M.D., Dean, School of Medicine and Executive Vice President for Clinical
Affairs. He is sued in his official capacity only. Plaintiff alleges that, for School of Medicine
academic status and MSPE-type entries, the Dean received the Student Conduct Board’s
findings, reviewed the determination, implemented the dismissal decision, and previously
concurred in School-of-Medicine–level consequences (including MSPE notation). He is a
necessary official- capacity implementer for aligning School-of-Medicine–level records and
communications with the outcome of the requested name-clearing/FERPA-amendment process.
For service of process on each official:

13

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, 3601 4th Street, Lubbock, Texas 79430 (their
usual place of business).
3. Jurisdiction & Venue. This Court has jurisdiction over claims for prospective relief requiring
state officers to comply with constitutional/statutory duties (ultra vires). Venue is mandatory in
Lubbock County because this suit primarily seeks injunctive relief against resident state officers.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 65.023(a). Governmental immunity does not bar prospective,
official-capacity ultra vires claims. See, e.g., City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex.
2009).
II. INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF THE ACTION
4. University officials portrayed Plaintiff as “threatening” or otherwise dangerous and used that
portrayal to impose Emergency Removal and a criminal trespass warning. TTUHSC’s own
records frame Plaintiff’s November 3, 2023 tweet in terms of a “perceived” or “potential” threat
based on some individuals’ subjective reactions, yet that “threat” narrative was embedded in
official channels and foreseeably reached third parties.
5. Plaintiff repeatedly requested a public, on-the-record opportunity to clear his name and to
correct or annotate affected records; officials did not provide that process.
III. FACTS (Dates/Actors/Quotes Included)
A. Government publication (official channels; class-wide broadcast)
6. On October 19, 2025, Plaintiff requested a public name-clearing hearing, interim transcript
relief, ADA/§ 504 accommodations, and preservation; the request set an October 21, 2025, 5:00
p.m. CT deadline to identify the scheduling official and procedures. The deadline passed without
the required action.
7. Around this period, official statements were disseminated to students and other recipients.
Two publications are central: (i) on January 1, 2024, a public-facing post stated that a committee
had voted to expel Plaintiff; and (ii) at 7:46 a.m. on January 7, 2024, the Assistant Vice Dean for
Student Affairs sent a class-wide broadcast stating “we are one student lighter than last week,”
instructing recipients to “check his Twitter.” System records reflect a recall attempt of that
message. These are agency publications, not private rumor.
B. Status change, exclusion measures, and the “threat” narrative (Emergency Removal, CTW,
and “perceived threat” language)
8. Plaintiff’s November 3, 2023 social-media post on X (formerly Twitter) was a short
philosophical reflection on mortality and the human condition. The post stated, in substance, that
“each and every one of us is going to be dead someday very, very soon” and that “these other
people, too, are going to be dead very, very soon.” It did not reference Texas Tech University

14

Health Sciences Center (“TTUHSC”), did not name any person, and did not call for or threaten
violence against anyone.
9. Plaintiff has sworn that this post “was a philosophical commentary on mortality and the
human condition,” not a threat directed at any individual, and that he has “never threatened or
harmed any person at TTUHSC or elsewhere in connection with these events.” He further states
he has never been arrested, charged, or investigated for any violent act or threat related to
TTUHSC or his social-media activity, and no restraining or protective order has ever issued
against him in connection with these matters.
10. Nevertheless, TTUHSC activated its Threat Assessment process and, on November 4, 2023,
issued an Emergency Removal letter citing alleged violations of Code of Conduct provisions
prohibiting “physical harm or threat of harm to any person” and “behavior that disrupts the
normal operation of the University” and invoking a judgment that Plaintiff’s presence “could”
endanger others or significantly disrupt operations.
11. In the associated Interim Suspension/Threat Assessment Questionnaire, TTUHSC officials
described the November 3 post as a “threatening post,” recorded that “several faculty members
and staff” contacted administration “expressing concern for personal safety,” and asserted a
“significant and articulable threat to the health or safety of” university community members
based on “the perceived threat within the post on X.” At the same time, the same form checked
“No” when asked whether the matter involved “criminal felony charges related to weapons,
drugs, aggravated assault, and/or terroristic threats.”
12. None of the Threat Assessment paperwork identifies any weapon, plan, specific target, or
concrete act of violence. Instead, it relies on unnamed faculty and staff who felt “concern for
personal safety” after viewing Plaintiff’s philosophical tweet and on generalized references to
“tension and concern for the safety of members of the university.”
13. TTUHSC’s December 27, 2023 Student Conduct Board determination letter repeats and
formalizes this security framing. The Board notes that Plaintiff is active on social media, that
many in the TTUHSC community follow him, and that when he sent the tweet he had pending
professionalism complaints and grievances. It concludes that “it was reasonable and foreseeable
that members of the TTUHSC community would be highly concerned when they read his tweet
and may fear for his safety and the safety of others,” and that “multiple witnesses at the hearing
stated that they were concerned for their safety when they saw Dr. Bass’s tweet.”
14. On that basis, the Board recites that, “[b]ased on input from the Threat Assessment Team,”
the Senior Associate Dean determined Plaintiff’s “behavior justified his emergency removal”
because “the physical or emotional well-being of a student or other members of the University
community could be endangered or the presence of the student could significantly disrupt the
normal operations of the university.”

15

15. The Board then states that Plaintiff’s tweet violated Code of Conduct Part II.D.5.a, which
“prohibits the threat of harm to any person,” along with provisions on disruptive or hostile
behavior and professional relationships. Yet its own written finding characterizes the tweet only
as “disruptive and reasonably perceived as a potential threat to members of the TTUHSC
community,” not as an actual threat or expression of intent to harm anyone.
16. TTUHSC’s documents repeatedly use qualifiers such as “perceived threat,” “potential
threat,” “may fear,” and “concern for personal safety,” rather than finding that Plaintiff actually
threatened violence. The Interim Suspension materials themselves describe faculty and staff as
expressing “a high degree of concern with the perceived threat within the post on X,” again
framing the tweet as something some viewers perceived as threatening, not as a direct or explicit
threat.
17. Plaintiff emphasizes this distinction, noting that the TTUHSC Student Conduct Board’s own
findings characterize the post as a ‘perceived threat’ and ‘potential threat’— not an actual threat,
and that the Board acknowledged that reasonable people could interpret the post differently.
Plaintiff denies that any reasonable observer, viewing the tweet in context, would interpret it as a
genuine threat of violence.
18. Plaintiff alleges that TTUHSC’s own conduct is inconsistent with a genuine belief that he
posed an immediate danger. During the same period in which TTUHSC invoked “threat”
language and imposed Emergency Removal and a Criminal Trespass Warning (“CTW”),
administrators continued to meet with Plaintiff personally. The tAssociate Dean of the School of
Medicine met Plaintiff alone off campus at a sandwich shop, and the Assistant Dean offered to
meet with him personally; no administrator ever declined a meeting on the ground that they
feared he would cause physical harm. Plaintiff, for his part, took care to avoid unnecessary
contact with faculty who had made such allegations about him, based on prior experiences in
which he believed similar accusations had been made unfairly.
19. When TTUHSC later held a consolidated disciplinary hearing on December 11, 2023,
Plaintiff arrived and entered the building without being searched; no one searched his person,
bags, or pockets at any point; he observed no uniformed police or security stationed inside or
immediately outside the hearing room; and faculty, administrators, and Board members sat in
close proximity to him throughout an approximately 14-hour hearing with no special physical
barriers or protective measures.
20. The CTW and Emergency Removal were temporary measures that expired by their own
terms. Plaintiff was not required to apply for reinstatement, submit to a psychological evaluation,
prove he was “no longer a threat,” or take any remedial action before those restrictions lapsed,
and TTUHSC did not re-issue any trespass warning or other security-related limitation after
expiration. Plaintiff contends that the expiration of these measures, without any additional

16

showing that he had become “safe,” is inconsistent with a belief that he posed a continuing threat
of violence.
21. While the CTW was in effect, Plaintiff was required to coordinate any campus presence
through Texas Tech Police (including CDRC drop-off/pick-up), often resulting in visible police
escort. That visible involvement signaled to others that Plaintiff was dangerous, causing stigma
and humiliation and deterring him from visiting campus-based witnesses or offices to gather
evidence. The Emergency Removal/CTW thus imposed practical burdens on ordinary activities
and on case preparation—part of the “status-change” plus—while the ongoing reputational harm
and publication are addressed below.
22. In contemporaneous correspondence challenging the CTW, Plaintiff wrote that TTUHSC
was treating his tweet as a threat to kill colleagues and that he could face criminal charges if he
did not contact police each time he dropped off his three-year-old child at daycare.
23. In July 2023, following Plaintiff’s psychiatry rotation, resident physician Caroline Fernandes
submitted a report concerning Plaintiff, and Assistant Dean Elisabeth Conser, acting as a
mandated reporter, submitted a “Sexual Harassment / Sexual Assault / Sexual Misconduct
Report” that categorized the matter as “sexual or gender-based harassment” and described it as a
“situation involving sexual harassment” in connection with that rotation. Those documents are
part of Plaintiff’s internal file.
24. Plaintiff denies that he has ever sexually harassed any person at TTUHSC or elsewhere. He
alleges that TTUHSC later addressed the same underlying events through professionalism and
student conduct processes rather than through a formal Title IX hearing, and that records
referring to the Fernandes report and its sexual-harassment categorization remain in the materials
used in connection with his dismissal.
25. Plaintiff is aware of public commentary by at least one physician stating that “Kevin Bass
received sexual harassment complaints and had made threats of violence before he was kicked
out of medical school.” Plaintiff alleges that this description is inaccurate but that it reflects how
some observers have understood the combination of internal reports and the “threat” narrative
described above.
26. Plaintiff further alleges that he has never been afforded a focused, public name-clearing
hearing on the combined “threat” narrative and the sexual-harassment/“sexual harassment
complaints” narrative that now follows him in public commentary. The Threat Assessment
process was ex parte and relied on undisclosed reports from “several faculty members and staff”;
Plaintiff was not present, did not see those reports, and had no opportunity to present witnesses
or evidence in his defense before Emergency Removal and the CTW were imposed.
27. The later December 11, 2023 consolidated disciplinary hearing, while lengthy, was not
structured or noticed as a public name-clearing proceeding. Disability-related evidence was

17

treated as outside the scope, Plaintiff’s neuropsychological evaluator was not permitted to testify,
attorney advisors were barred from directly questioning witnesses, and deliberations occurred off
the record under the direction of the attorney retained by the university. Plaintiff had no
meaningful ability to create a public, on-the-record account responding to the “threat” framing or
to the way sexual-harassment accusations and “unprofessional behavior” labels were discussed
alongside threats of violence and dismissal. Plaintiff further alleges that the same pattern
pervaded virtually all related grievance and mistreatment processes: he filed multiple grievances,
but investigators relied on others’ accounts while declining to interview him, while treating the
grievances as a form of aggression. For example, the November 7, 2023 SOM OP 40.05
memorandum by Assistant Dean J. Edward Bates reports interviews with Dr. Fernandes, the
Title IX Coordinator, Dr. Trotter, and another resident, but not with Plaintiff himself, even as it
concludes that the resident’s complaint was filed in “good faith” and characterizes Plaintiff’s
grievance as a policy violation and potential retaliation. Plaintiff alleges that this was
representative of a broader pattern in which TTUHSC interviewed and credited complainants and
administrators, but did not interview him, leaving only their accounts in the record.
28. In his written hearing-request rationale regarding the Fernandes report, Plaintiff recounts that
before filing his grievance he sought guidance from multiple senior administrators—including
Drs. Conser, Trotter, Perrin, and Erwin, as well as Title IX personnel—expressly asking whether
and how to file and what the consequences might be; he alleges that none of them warned him
that doing so could be treated as retaliation, and that he acted in good faith to defend his
reputation against what he viewed as a false and humiliating sexual harassment accusation. He
further alleges that throughout this period he repeatedly asked supervising physicians for
feedback, often daily, and was told that he was doing well, only to later receive
“professionalism” and “unprofessional behavior” allegations without prior warning or
meaningful remedial guidance. Plaintiff contends that embedding disputed “threat,” sexual
harassment, and “unprofessional behavior” narrative language in education records and
communications—while declining to convene a dedicated, public name- clearing/FERPAamendment hearing and declining to interview him in grievance investigations— constitutes the
core due-course-of-law violation at issue.
C. Clinical evaluations, internal conflicts, and dissemination to third parties
29. Plaintiff’s medical-education record also includes narrative clinical evaluations and letters of
recommendation. TTUHSC maintains these materials as part of his education file and may
transmit them to third-party institutions, including other medical schools, in response to records
requests. Plaintiff alleges that some of these evaluations contain unfavorable characterizations of
his professionalism and mental health and that he seeks an opportunity to correct or annotate
those characterizations through the processes described below.
30. During the relevant period, Plaintiff completed core clerkships in psychiatry, obstetrics and
gynecology (“OB/GYN”), and pediatrics. His psychiatry clerkship evaluation was uniformly

18

positive, praising his clinical performance, knowledge, and professionalism, and resulted in a
strong letter of recommendation.
31. In OB/GYN, one faculty evaluator described Plaintiff as eager and hard-working but
recorded concerns about his “professionalism” and related issues. Those concerns were later
reviewed in connection with Plaintiff’s first appeal following the December 11, 2023 hearing.
Plaintiff alleges that TTUHSC ultimately cleared him of professionalism charges arising from
that evaluation, yet TTUHSC has continued to rely on the OB/GYN evaluation in internal and
external narratives as if its professionalism concerns were undisturbed findings of unprofessional
conduct.
32. In pediatrics, TTUHSC now emphasizes a failing clerkship evaluation that labels Plaintiff as
unprofessional, raises vague concerns about his “mental health,” and states that he should not be
permitted to advance in medical school. Plaintiff alleges that this evaluation was authored by the
same faculty member about whom he had previously filed formal grievances for bullying and
retaliatory conduct and who reported his November 3, 2023 tweet as a “threat,” and that it was
written after TTUHSC had already removed him from campus on that basis. Plaintiff contends
that this conflict of interest and prior history materially influenced the tone and content of the
pediatrics evaluation.
33. By contrast, a different pediatrics attending who supervised Plaintiff at an off-site clinical
location and was not involved in the events leading to Plaintiff’s emergency removal initially
expressed reservations about Plaintiff during the first week of that rotation but, after observing
his performance over time, later rated him highly and subsequently provided a strong letter of
recommendation. Plaintiff alleges that this independent, off-site evaluation shows that the oncampus pediatrics evaluation was not representative of how other pediatrics faculty assessed his
clinical work when they were not participating in the same internal conflict.
34. Plaintiff alleges that TTUHSC has selectively maintained and disseminated the most
stigmatizing portions of these clerkship evaluations—including the on-campus pediatrics
evaluation—while downplaying or omitting the later clearing of OB/GYN professionalism
concerns, the positive psychiatry evaluation, and the favorable off-site pediatrics evaluation and
recommendation. When these selective disclosures are combined with the “threat” narrative and
the externally circulated shorthand that he was dismissed amid “sexual harassment” complaints
and “threats of violence,” they reinforce a narrative that Plaintiff is professionally unfit and
mentally unstable.
35. Plaintiff further alleges that these clinical evaluations and letters, as maintained and
transmitted by TTUHSC and its officials, are “education records” and “personal information”
within the meaning of FERPA and Tex. Gov’t Code § 559.004, and that he is entitled to a
process to correct, annotate, or append his own statement to the portions he contends are
inaccurate, misleading, or maintained in violation of privacy rights.

19

D. Present-tense dissemination via official records (transcript notation; third-party recipients)
36. On October 16, 2025, TTUHSC issued an official transcript listing “Administrative
Dismissal Effective 01-11-2024.” That notation was transmitted to third-party institutions; at
least one recipient declined to offer an interview. This is ongoing publication via official records,
warranting annotation/appendment of a corrective hearing record to any future disclosure.
E. ADA/§ 504 context (notice; policy anchors; why prior process was not a name-clearing
hearing)
37. Plaintiff gave Student Disability Services notice on December 8, 2023 and requested
accommodations consistent with TTUHSC policy. The prior internal proceeding did not function
as a public name-clearing hearing: accommodations evidence was treated outside scope,
questioning was time-limited, and recording ceased before deliberations.
F. Request and denial (element satisfied)
38. Plaintiff requested a name-clearing hearing (¶ 6); the October 21 deadline passed without
scheduling, and subsequent follow-ups failed to secure the hearing. Request and denial are
adequately alleged.
IV. CLAIMS FOR PROSPECTIVE RELIEF (Official-Capacity Only; No Damages)
COUNT 1 — Texas Due Course of Law (Tex. Const. art. I, § 19): Stigma-Plus / Name-Clearing
39. Government publication of false or misleading, stigmatizing charges tied to a status change
— including narratives that Plaintiff posed a safety threat and that he was dismissed amid sexualharassment complaints and supposed “threats of violence,” as now described in public
commentary—triggers a right to a public name-clearing hearing and to a corrective record
appended to future disclosures.
COUNT 2 — Ultra Vires Injunctive Relief (Prospective Only)
40. Under TTUHSC’s Student Education Records policy (HSC OP 77.13 or successor), the
EVPAA (Provost) or designee must arrange a hearing upon request, and the President or
designee must appoint the hearing official/committee. If no change is ordered, the student’s
statement must be maintained with, and disclosed with, the contested portion. The Registrar must
implement any ordered corrections/annotations to education records and transcripts. Defendant
Mancini, as Director of Student Disability Services and ADA Coordinator, has central, policylevel responsibility for coordinating Title II compliance and ADA/§ 504 accommodations,
including ensuring that any name-clearing/FERPA-amendment hearing is accessible and
reasonably accommodated. The Senior Associate Dean for Student Affairs and the Senior
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs must implement school-level scheduling and academicstatus changes flowing from the hearing outcome. The Dean of the School of Medicine must

20

align School-of-Medicine–level records and MSPE-type communications with the outcome of
the hearing and any appended student statement. The Associate Managing Director for Student
Financial Aid must ensure that any corrected/annotated status is reflected consistently in Title
IV/enrollment-status reporting, holds, and related financial-aid communications. Defendants
with these duties act without legal authority when they refuse to perform them or decline to
implement lawful correction/annotation and associated accommodations. Prospective injunctions
should compel compliance.
COUNT 3 — Statutory Annotation/Correction (Tex. Gov’t Code § 559.004)
41. Section 559.004 requires a reasonable correction/annotation procedure for incorrect personal
information. Refusal to apply that procedure warrants prospective orders implementing it here,
including appendment of the hearing record or student statement to any future disclosure.
42. TTUHSC’s own published policies and notices acknowledge and purport to implement these
statutory duties. In its privacy notice “Concerning Your Information,” TTUHSC tells individuals
that they may request that TTUHSC revise information that is incorrect by contacting the office
that maintains the information. TTUHSC’s Student Education Records policy, HSC OP 77.13,
and the student-facing Student Handbook further describe a formal “Student’s Request to Amend
Records” process: the student may request amendment of education records believed to be
inaccurate, misleading, or in violation of privacy rights; if the request is denied, the
EVPAA/Provost (or designee) must arrange a hearing, the President (or designee) must appoint
an impartial hearing official or committee, and if no change is ordered, the student has the right
to place a written statement in the record that must be maintained with, and disclosed with, the
contested portion in all future disclosures. TTUHSC’s 2012–2013 Student Handbook also
expressly cites Tex. Gov’t Code § 559.004 in describing students’ rights to correct or amend
records. Despite Plaintiff’s written requests seeking correction and annotation of the dismissal
notation and related education records, Defendants have not afforded Plaintiff this promised
correction/annotation process or appended any student statement to the disclosures at issue.
V. APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
43. Probable right to relief: ¶¶ 6–42 allege stigmatizing publication, status change, falsity, lack of
an adequate prior public hearing, request, and denial.
44. Probable, imminent, irreparable injury; no adequate remedy at law: Ongoing dissemination
of disputed stigma via official records/transcripts to third parties is non-compensable reputational
and opportunity harm; Plaintiff seeks equitable process. Although the CTW has expired, the
current harm arises from TTUHSC’s ongoing dissemination of stigmatizing information through
official records/transcripts to third parties, which equitable relief can remedy by ordering a
public name-clearing/FERPA amendment hearing and record annotation.

21

45. Requested interim relief pending final judgment: (a) Order the President (or designee) to
identify and appoint the hearing official/committee by a date certain, and order the
EVPAA/Provost (or designee), in coordination with Defendant Mancini in her role as ADA
Coordinator and Director of Student Disability Services, to schedule a public
name-clearing/FERPA-amendment hearing on a near date certain, with ADA/§ 504
accommodations coordinated by Student Disability Services. (b) Order the Registrar to
implement a neutral interim transcript notation stating “Disputed; correction/annotation process
pending” until the hearing occurs, and after the hearing, to append the corrective hearing record
(or, if no change is ordered, Plaintiff’s statement) to any future disclosure of the affected
record(s). (c) Preservation of relevant records. (d) Bond: set a nominal bond under TRCP 684.
VI. PRAYER
46. Plaintiff asks the Court to: (a) order a prompt, public, ADA-accommodated
name-clearing/FERPA amendment hearing under HSC OP 77.13, with a preserved public record;
(b) order implementation of Tex. Gov’t Code § 559.004 by directing the Registrar to correct or
annotate records so any future transcript/records disclosure includes the corrective hearing record
or Plaintiff’s statement, and by directing: (i) the Dean of the School of Medicine to align Schoolof-Medicine–level records and MSPE- type communications with the outcome of the hearing and
any appended student statement; (ii) the Associate Managing Director for Student Financial Aid
to ensure that any corrected/ annotated status is reflected consistently in Title IV/enrollmentstatus reporting, holds, and related financial-aid communications; and (iii) Defendant Mancini, in
her capacity as ADA Coordinator and Director of Student Disability Services, to ensure that the
hearing and related procedures remain accessible and ADA/ § 504-accommodated; (c) tax costs;
and (d) grant such further prospective relief as justice requires.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kevin Bass
Kevin Bass (pro se)

Phone: 512-333-4092
Email: kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com
Note regarding timing: Plaintiff originally transmitted this petition for electronic filing through
the eFileTexas system on November 5, 2025, at approximately 12:00 a.m. Central Time—within
minutes of the target date of November 4, 2025. Because the original envelope was later rejected
for procedural reasons (caption, filing office, and signature block), Plaintiff re-filed promptly in
the correct form and venue. This note is included to demonstrate diligence and good-faith
compliance; Plaintiff does not concede any untimeliness.

22

VERIFICATION (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 132.001)
My name is Kevin Bass. My date of birth is 12/07/1984. My address is
I declare under penalty of perjury that the facts stated in paragraphs 6–42 of
this Second Amended Petition are true and correct.
12/11
Executed in Lubbock County, Texas, on
_____________, 2025.

___________________________ Kevin Bass

23