Exhibit B, comparison of the First Amended Complaint and the proposed Second Amended Complaint (attachment to Dkt. 26)¶

Bass v. TTUHSC, No. 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV (N.D. Tex.) · Dkt. 26-3 · 2026-01-20 · PDF

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

EXHIBIT B
Targeted Blackline / Key Deltas (First Amended Complaint → Proposed
Second Amended Complaint)
This exhibit is a targeted comparison highlighting the principal deltas that bear
on scope, relief, and prejudice. It is not intended to reproduce a full
document-wide blackline.

1. Federal–State Coordination and “Firewall” (No OP 77.13 /
Transcript Relief in This Court)
FAC (prior language)
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.

Proposed SAC (new / clarified language)
3. FIREWALL / NO OP 77.13 RELIEF. Plaintiff does not ask this Court to enforce
TTUHSC’s education-record amendment/annotation procedure (HSC OP 77.13)
or Tex. Gov’t Code § 559.004, and Plaintiff does not seek any order directing
changes to, removal of, or annotation of Plaintiff’s transcript or other education
records. Any reference to education-record inspection/access or transcript
notations is pleaded solely to explain timing and continuing publication and to
describe resulting injuries, and does not request adjudication of record accuracy
or OP 77.13 / § 559.004 compliance in this Court.
SEPARATE PROCEDURE-ONLY STATE MATTER; NON-DUPLICATION. Plaintiff
pursues OP 77.13/§ 559.004 record-procedure mechanics only in a separate,
narrowly limited state-court action concerning Defendants’ post-December 30,
2025 implementation of inspection/review and response steps for an OP 77.13
request. That state matter expressly disclaims damages and any request that a
state court adjudicate the merits of the underlying disciplinary decision or the
truth/falsity of record content. Plaintiff seeks only non-duplicative federal relief
here, including damages and declaratory relief for federal
statutory/constitutional violations and limited prospective process relief (e.g.,
name-clearing), relief not available in the state record-procedure matter.
28. Separate state “record-procedure” matter limited to Defendants’
post-December 30, 2025 implementation of inspection/review and response
mechanics. After filing this federal action, Plaintiff filed a separate, narrowly
limited state-court petition in Lubbock County seeking only prospective,
official-capacity relief to compel TTUHSC officials to perform ministerial steps
required by TTUHSC’s published education-record procedure (HSC OP 77.13)

Page 1

and Texas Government Code § 559.004 for an OP 77.13 request initiated on
December 30, 2025—a written amendment/annotation request. That state
petition expressly disclaims damages, expressly disclaims any request that a
state court adjudicate the merits of the underlying disciplinary decision, and
asserts no federal cause of action.
29. No duplication; not a substitute. Plaintiff does not seek in this federal action
any OP 77.13 enforcement, any education-record amendment/annotation order,
or any order directing changes to the official transcript record. The federal
claims here involve disability discrimination in an adjudicative proceeding,
retaliation, and the publication of threat-imputing communications and the
denial of a name-clearing process—relief not available in the state
“record-procedure” matter. Any reference to the state “record-procedure”
matter is for scope clarification only and is not intended to adopt or incorporate
the state pleading’s allegations, and is not an admission that the matters are
parallel or that adjudication of the state matter would resolve any claim here.

2. Transcript Annotation/Correction Relief Removed from
Federal Prayer
FAC (requested transcript annotation/correction)
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.
G. Order interim annotation/issuance of a corrected transcript pending the
name-clearing hearing (nonstigmatizing, status-neutral — 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.

Proposed SAC (expressly disclaims transcript correction/annotation in this Court)
Plaintiff does not seek in this action any order directing changes to the official
transcript record or enforcing OP 77.13 / Tex. Gov’t Code § 559.004
record-procedure requirements. Plaintiff does not seek a transcript correction,
expungement, or annotation order in this Court.

Page 2

IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the
Court enter judgment in his favor and grant the following relief: (A) Declare that
the challenged practices and continuing disclosures alleged in ¶¶56–58 and the
violations pleaded in Counts 1–7 violate Title II of the ADA, § 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments as applicable, to
the extent they continue or are likely to recur; (B) Award economic damages
proximately caused by the violations pleaded (including the economic losses
pleaded in ¶55) and nominal damages where permitted, against the proper
defendants and only to the extent authorized for each claim; (C) Enter
prospective injunctive relief pursuant to Ex parte Young and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65,
limited to non-duplicative, non-record-procedure relief only. [excerpt continues]

3. Added Individual-Capacity Defendant: David Trotter, Ph.D.
FAC (Trotter appears in factual allegations, but was not pleaded as a defendant)
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.

Proposed SAC (adds Trotter as an individual-capacity defendant)
23A. Defendant David Trotter, Ph.D., served as TTUHSC’s Student Conduct
Administrator for Plaintiff’s disciplinary matter, including the pre-hearing
consolidation notice and hearing-procedure communications described below.
He is sued in his individual capacity.

Page 3

4. Name-Clearing Relief Clarified / Pleaded as a Distinct
Prospective Claim (Count 7)
FAC (name-clearing referenced in stigma-plus count and prayer)
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).
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.

Proposed SAC (adds a cabined, prospective name-clearing count under Ex parte
Young)
COUNT 7 – Name-Clearing Hearing (Prospective Relief) via § 1983 and
Ex parte Young – Against McSween, Cobbs, Williams, Rice-Spearman,
and D’Agostino (Official Capacities)
77. Defendants, acting under color of state law, have caused and continue to
cause dissemination of stigmatizing, materially false threat-imputing
implications to third parties in connection with pleaded alterations of Plaintiff’s
legal status, including emergency removal, campus-access/criminal-trespass
restrictions, and termination of Plaintiff’s student status. For purposes of this
claim, “made public” includes dissemination by state actors outside internal
need-to-know channels to third parties such as non-TTUHSC affiliate personnel,
gatekeepers, and distribution-list recipients, and does not rely on any
self-publication by Plaintiff. The falsity alleged here is not a dispute that
Defendants issued exclusion or status measures; it is the materially false
implication that Plaintiff posed a safety threat requiring security escalation and
exclusion absent any adjudicated finding of dangerousness.
77A. The official-capacity defendants named in Count 7 are sued only to the
extent each has a sufficient implementation connection to the prospective
process relief requested: (a) McSween, as registrar/status-verification
gatekeeper for non-transcript status communications (¶53); (b) Cobbs and
Williams, as student-affairs/academic-affairs officials alleged to have
participated in and maintained the challenged exclusion directives and

Page 4

communications (¶48–49); and (c) Rice-Spearman and D’Agostino, only to the
extent of their cabined authority described in ¶46B.
77B. Plaintiff continues to face ongoing and imminent harm from the continuing
risk of disclosure and re-issuance of the challenged threat-imputing
communications and status verifications. See ¶56–57.
78. Plaintiff requested a name-clearing hearing addressing the stigmatizing
implication that he posed a safety threat. Defendants have refused and/or failed
to provide such a hearing.
78A. The December 11, 2023 disciplinary proceeding did not satisfy the
constitutional name-clearing requirement for the dangerousness stigma. The
proceeding was not convened, noticed, or structured as a name-clearing hearing
focused on the narrow question whether Plaintiff posed a safety threat requiring
security escalation. The proceeding’s structure and evidence gating prevented
Plaintiff from creating a meaningful record focused on rebutting the
threat-imputing implication later disseminated to third parties, and
disability-related communication supports were denied.
79. Plaintiff seeks only prospective, procedural relief: (a) an order requiring
Defendants to provide a constitutionally adequate name-clearing hearing within
a timeframe set by the Court, limited to the stigmatizing implication that
Plaintiff posed a safety threat and with reasonable disability accommodations;
and (b) pending that process, an order requiring that any new non-transcript
exclusion/status communications about Plaintiff to third-party clinical affiliates
or gatekeepers be limited to neutral status information and not include new
threat-imputing characterizations (as defined in ¶79A) except as required by a
specific legal obligation.
Plaintiff does not seek in this action any order directing changes to the official
transcript record or enforcing OP 77.13 / Tex. Gov’t Code § 559.004
record-procedure requirements. Plaintiff does not seek a transcript correction,
expungement, or annotation order in this Court. (¶79A continues.)

Page 5