Findings and Recommendations of the magistrate judge on the request for a preliminary injunction in the amended complaint (Dkt. 14)¶
Bass v. TTUHSC, No. 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV (N.D. Tex.) · Dkt. 21 · 2025-12-29 · PDF
Text extracted from the PDF; scanned pages were read by OCR. The PDF is the authoritative copy.
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 21
Filed 12/29/25
Page 1 of 7
PageID 304
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
KEVIN N. BASS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH
SCIENCES CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
No. 5:25-CV-244-H-BV
§
§
§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Buried within his amended complaint is prose Plaintiff Kevin N. Bass's request
for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 14 at 18-19 .1 Among other things, Bass asks the
Court to (1) direct Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center's registrar to annotate
his transcript, and (2) stop unspecified officials from sending messages to hospitals and
other entities stating that Bass should not be allowed in their facilities. After considering
Bass's request and applicable law, the undersigned recommends that the United States
District Judge DENY the request without prejudice to his right to request injunctive relief
in the future should circumstances change.2
1.
Procedural and Factual Background
Bass was enrolled in Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center's (TTUHSC)
medical school. See Dkt. No. 14 at 9. In November 2023, he made a social media post,
1 Page citations to Bass's filings refer to the electronic page number assigned by the Court's electronic
filing system.
2 Bass has not consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the
undersigned enters these findings, conclusions, and recommendation (FCR).
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 21
Filed 12/29/25
Page 2 of 7
PageID 305
which prompted TTUHSC to issue an emergency removal and criminal trespass warning,
prohibiting Bass from being on campus. Id. at 8-9. TTUHSC notified local hospitals
and other entities that Bass should not be permitted in their facilities "pending further
notice." Id. at 10 (internal quotation marks omitted). TTUHSC later held a fourteenhour disciplinary hearing, and Bass was dismissed from medical school. Id. at 6-7, 9.
TTUHSC placed a notation on Bass's transcript reflecting the "administrative dismissal"
as of January 11, 2024. Id. at 9.
Based on this incident, Bass alleges a slew of claims, including violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (RA), and the
Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 13-17. Bass's original complaint contained a request for
preliminary injunction, which the undersigned recommended be denied. Dkt. Nos. I, 7.
Bass made untimely objections to the undersigned's findings and conclusions and then
filed an amended complaint as a matter of course. Dkt. Nos. 8, 14. Bass's amended
complaint contains an identical request for preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 14 at 18-19.
Bass served Defendants with the amended complaint on December 17, 2025, but they
have not yet appeared in the case or otherwise responded to Bass's request for injunctive
relief. Nevertheless, the undersigned now issues these findings, conclusions, and
recommendation on the amended request for a preliminary injunction.
2.
Legal Standard
Rule 65(a) provides that "[t]he court may issue a preliminary injunction only on
notice to the adverse party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(l). The notice requirement "is
2
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 21
Filed 12/29/25
Page 3 of 7
PageID 306
mandatory." Harris Cnty. v. CarMax Auto Superstores Inc., 177 F.3d 306, 326 (5th Cir.
1999) (citation omitted).
In addition to notice, a movant must meet other requirements to obtain an
injunction. "An injunction is an extraordinary remedy and should not issue except upon a
clear showing of possible irreparable injury." Lewis v. S.S. Baune, 534 F.2d 1115, 1121
(5th Cir. 1976).
Courts should not grant injunctive relief"routinely, but only when the
movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion." White v. Carlucci, 862
F.2d 1209, 1211 (5th Cir. 1989) (quoting Holland Am. Ins. Co. v. Succession ofRoy, 777
F.2d 992, 997 (5th Cir. 1985)); see Miss. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line
Co., 760 F.2d 618,621 (5th Cir. 1985) (explaining that "[t]he decision to grant a
preliminary injunction is to be treated as the exception rather than the rule").
To secure a preliminary injunction, a movant must demonstrate:
1. A substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his case;
2. A substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted;
3. The threatened injury to the movant outweighs any damage the injunction will
cause the non-movant; and
4. The injunction will not have an adverse effect on the public interest.
Women's Med. Ctr. ofNw. Hous. v. Bell, 248 F.3d 411, 418-20 (5th Cir. 2001); see
Enter. Int'!, Inc. v. Corporacion Estatal Petro/era Ecuatoriana, 762 F.2d 464,472 (5th
Cir. 1985) (providing that "if the movant does not succeed in carrying its burden on any
one of the four prerequisites, a preliminary injunction may not issue").
3
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
3.
Document 21
Filed 12/29/25
Page 4 of 7
PageID 307
Analysis
Bass seeks a mandatory preliminaiy injunction in that he wants "to alter the status
quo prior to litigation rather than maintain it." Texas v. Ysleta de! Sur Pueblo, No. EPl 7-CV-179-PRM, 2018 WL 1566866, at *9 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2018). Thus, he
"bears the burden of showing a clear entitlement to the relief under the facts and the
law." Justin Indus., Inc. v. Choctaw Secs., L.P., 920 F.2d 262, 268 n.7 (5th Cir. 1990)
(per curiam) (emphasis added); see TitleMax of Tex., Inc. v. City ofDallas, 142 F.4th
322, 328 (5th Cir. 2025) ("[W]hen a plaintiff applies for a mandatory preliminary
injunction, such relief should not be granted except in rare instances in which the facts
and law are clearly in favor of the moving party." (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted)). "Mandatory preliminaty relief, which goes well beyond simply maintaining
the status quo pendente lite, is particularly disfavored .... " Martinez v. Mathews, 544
F.2d 1233, 1243 (5th Cir. 1976).
Bass has not shown he is entitled to a mandatory preliminary injunction because
he has not established that he will suffer irreparable harm. "A preliminary injunction is
typically granted during the pendency of a lawsuit to prevent irreparable injury that may
result before a final decision on the merits." Shanks v. City ofDallas, 752 F.2d 1092,
1096 (5th Cir. 1985). "[A]n injmy is irreparable only ifit cannot be undone through
monetaiy remedies." Dennis Melancon, Inc. v. City ofNew Orleans, 703 F.3d 262,279
(5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); accord Broyles v. Texas,
618 F. Supp. 2d 661,681 (S.D. Tex. 2009) ("An injury is irreparable if the injured party
cannot be adequately compensated in damages or if the damages cannot be measured by
4
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 21
Filed 12/29/25
Page 5 of 7
PageID 308
any certain pecuniary standard."), aff'd, 381 F. App'x 370 (5th Cir. 2010). "Mere
injuries, however substantial, in terms of money, time and energy necessarily expended
in the absence ofan injunction, are not enough." Dennis Melancon, 703 F.3d at 279
(brackets and citation omitted).
Here, Bass alleges that he will suffer "irreparable injury to [his] professional
reputation and training trajectory through continuing publication and transcript notation."
Dkt. No. 14 at 18. But Bass does not specify how his reputation will continue to be
harmed absent injunctive relief, nor does he explain the specific impacts of that
reputational damage. See id. at 9 (indicating that on October 16, 2025, TTUHSC issued a
transcript and "[t]hird-party recipients reported adverse decisions" thereafter), 12-13
("Plaintiff faces ongoing hann" from "transcript notations and status communications").
Instead, Bass makes only vague allegations concerning third parties, with no indication
whether those parties are educational or employment opportunities, nor a specific
contention as to the reputational damage he has and continues to suffer. Similarly, Bass
wants to stop TTUHSC from issuing future messages to hospitals regarding his admission
to their facilities, but Bass includes no facts showing that TTUHSC will again issue such
a message or that he would be permitted into these facilities but for TTUHSC's
continuing notifications.
In effect, Bass wants to address past wrongs-his dismissal from medical school
and the corresponding notation on his transcript, along with a revocation of privileges
from hospitals-but money and other corrective relief can remedy those damages if Bass
succeeds in this action. See Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 89-90 (1974) ("[T]he
5
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 21
Filed 12/29/25
Page 6 of 7
PageID 309
temporary loss of income" due to damaging information "does not usually constitute
irreparable injury."); Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585,600 (5th Cir. 2011) ("In general, a
harm is irreparable where there is no adequate remedy at law, such as monetary
damages."); cf Sambrano v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 21-1115, 2022 WL 486610, at *67 (5th Cir. Feb. 17, 2022) (per curiam) (distinguishing between two types of harm in
employment cases-the adverse action itself and those harms stemming from that action,
versus "injuries that are independent from the adverse employment action").
In sum, Bass's allegations are too sparse and speculative to conclude he will suffer
irreparable injury. See, e.g., Co,poracion Estatal Petro/era Ecuatoriana, 762 F.2d at
472, 474 (reminding district courts that movant bears a heavy burden to obtain the
"extraordinary and drastic remedy" of a preliminary injunction and holding that lower
court erred in granting injunctive relief in part because reputational harm, absent
evidentiary support, was speculative); Aransas Project v. Shaw, 775 F.3d 641,664 (5th
Cir. 2014) (per curiam) ("An injunction may thus be issued only if future injury is
certainly impending." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Porter Teleo, LLC
v. Print40ne, LLC, No. 4:19-CV-03334, 2020 WL 6277583, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 9,
2020) (denying preliminary injunction in part because plaintiff did not supply evidence of
damage to reputation or threat of future injury); cf Sambrano, 2022 WL 486610, at *6
("In lawsuits alleging wrongful termination or adverse employment action, the plaintiff is
ordinarily not irreparably harmed. That is because the statutory relief available at the
conclusion of a successful lawsuit (including reinstatement and back pay) can adequately
compensate the plaintiff for the employer's wrongful conduct.").
6
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
4.
Document 21
Filed 12/29/25
Page 7 of 7
PageID 310
Recommendation
Because Bass has not met his steep burden regarding the extraordinary remedy of
a preliminary injunction, the undersigned recommends that the United States District
Judge deny Bass' s request.
5.
Right to Object
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all
parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these
findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections within
fourteen days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) (2016); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b). To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding, conclusion,
or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and
specify the place in the magistrate judge's Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by
reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to
file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual
findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the
district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass'n, 79 F .3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
Dated: December i,q , 2025.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7