Third Amended Verified Original Petition¶
Bass v. D'Agostino and McSween, No. DC-2025-CV-1817 / No. 15-26-00132-CV · 2026-01-22 · PDF
Text extracted from the PDF; scanned pages were read by OCR. The PDF is the authoritative copy.
Filed
1/22/2026 12:10
12:10 PM
PM
Filed 1/22/2026
Sara L.
Sara
L. Smith
Smith
Lubbock County
County -- 237th
Lubbock
237th District
District Court
Court
Lubbock
County, Texas
Texas
Lubbock County,
LU
LU
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS 237th JUDICIAL
DISTRICT
KEVIN
N.
BASS,
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
V.
§
§
DARRIN D'AGOSTINO, D.O., M.P.H., M.B.A., in his §
official capacity as Provost and Executive Vice §
President of Academics of Texas Tech §
University Health Sciences Center; and §
AMANDA MCSWEEN, in her official capacity as §
Managing Director of Enrollment Services and §
University Registrar of Texas Tech University §
Health Sciences Center, §
Defendants.
§
THIRD AMENDED VERIFIED ORIGINAL PETITION (Limited OP 77.13 +
Tex. Gov't Code § 559.004 Record-Procedure Relief Only;
Prospective Official-Capacity Relief Only; No Damages; No
Federal Causes of Action)
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
Plaintiff Kevin N. Bass (pro se) files this Third Amended
Verified Original Petition and alleges as follows:
I. PARTIES / SERVICE
1. Plaintiff Kevin N. Bass is a resident of Lubbock County,
Texas.
2. Defendants are officials of Texas Tech University Health
Sciences Center ("TTUHSC") sued only in their official
capacities for prospective relief. Defendants are named
because HSC OP 77.13 and Tex. Gov't Code § 559.004 impose or
contemplate discrete, ministerial, non-discretionary
procedural roles necessary to implement the inspection/review
and written-response steps invoked by Plaintiff's December
30, 2025 request-specifically: (i) the EVPA's limited
assistance function when a student is uncertain where
responsive education records are maintained, and (ii) the
University Registrar's custodial processing of
transcript-related education-record inspection/review
29
29
logistics and the related amendment/annotation and
dispute-statement procedure steps. Defendants are:
a. Darrin D·Agostino, D.O., M.P.H., M.B.A., Provost and
Executive Vice President of Academics (·EVPA·); and
b. Amanda McSween, Managing Director of Enrollment Services
and University Registrar.
Plaintiff does not seek relief based on generalized supervisory
authority alone. 3. For service of process, Plaintiff requests
that the District Clerk issue citation for each Defendant upon
request and that service of citation and a copy of the petition
be accomplished in accordance with Tex. R. Civ. P. 99, 103, and
106. Plaintiff requests service at TTUHSC·s principal place of
business, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, 3601 4th
Street, Lubbock, Texas 79430, unless the clerk or authorized
server requires a different address for a particular Defendant.
II. JURISDICTION / VENUE
4. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over claims
seeking prospective injunctive relief against state officials
to compel performance of non-discretionary legal duties and
to cease ultra vires conduct. Plaintiff seeks only
prospective relief and no damages.
4A. Jurisdictional facts (immunity-exception path). Plaintiff·s
requested relief is limited to prospective orders compelling
officials to implement a reasonable education-record
inspection/review and written-response procedure required by
Tex. Gov·t Code § 559.004 as implemented through TTUHSC·s
published OP 77.13. This Petition challenges only the
post-December 30, 2025 implementation mechanics alleged below
and does not require this Court to decide the accuracy of any
record content or the merits of any underlying decision.
Plaintiff pleads that, under the escorted in-person format and
postponements alleged below, he cannot complete
inspection/review and submit a sufficiently precise
amendment/annotation request within OP 77.13·s time-limit
structure, and the requested prospective order would redress
that procedural injury.
5. Venue is proper in Lubbock County because Plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief against Defendants, and a writ of
injunction is tried in the county where the party against
whom the writ is sought is domiciled. To the extent
30
30
Defendants are domiciled in Lubbock County, Texas, venue is
proper here. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 65.023(a).
III. LIMITED SCOPE / NON-DUPLICATION / NO FEDERAL CLAIMS
6. FIREWALL / PROCEDURE-ONLY SCOPE LOCK. This action challenges
only Defendants· post-December 30, 2025 implementation of the
ministerial inspection/review and response mechanics required
by TTUHSC HSC OP 77.13 and Tex. Gov·t Code § 559.004.
Plaintiff seeks only prospective official-capacity relief
compelling a workable, reasonable, non-unduly burdensome
procedure. Plaintiff seeks no damages.
NO MERITS / NO ACCURACY / NO FEDERAL ISSUES. Plaintiff does not
ask this Court to decide whether any disputed education-record
item is true, false, accurate, or justified; does not ask this
Court to adjudicate the merits of any underlying disciplinary
decision or exclusion measure; and asserts no federal cause of
action and requests no adjudication of any federal-law issue.
Any mention of other proceedings is for scope clarification only
and is not intended to adopt or incorporate another pleading·s
allegations.
6A. As used in this Petition, ·education records· means only
those student education records governed by TTUHSC·s published
Student Education Records procedure (HSC OP 77.13) and the
related state-law record-procedure obligations discussed herein.
IV. FACTS (EDUCATION-RECORD ACCESS AND RECORD-PROCEDURE COMPLIANCE)
Plaintiff pleads only the post-December 30, 2025 facts necessary
to show whether Defendants are implementing a workable,
reasonable inspection/review and written-response procedure
under OP 77.13 and Tex. Gov·t Code § 559.004. Plaintiff seeks
only prospective procedure relief and no damages, and does not
ask this Court to decide the accuracy of any education-record
content or the merits of any underlying decision. Any reference
to other proceedings is for scope clarification only and is not
intended to adopt another pleading·s allegations.
7. TTUHSC is a ·state governmental body· within the meaning of
Tex. Gov·t Code § 559.001. TTUHSC maintains Plaintiff·s
education records, including his official transcript.
8. TTUHSC has issued official transcripts for Plaintiff showing
the notation ·Administrative Dismissal Effective 01-11-2024·
(or substantially similar wording). Plaintiff disputes that
31
31
record item and invokes the OP 77.13/§ 559.004 procedure
concerning that disputed record item. Plaintiff·s dispute is
presented here only to identify the record item that triggers
OP 77.13/§ 559.004 procedures; Plaintiff does not ask this
Court to determine whether the notation is true or false or
to direct any substantive change to the transcript record. 9.
TTUHSC has published a Student Education Records policy (HSC
OP 77.13) providing: a. a right to inspect and review
education records upon a written request, including a
requirement that the records custodian arrange access for
inspection and review within forty-five (45) days of receipt
of a proper written request and notify the student of the
time and place for inspection; b. a procedure to request
amendment of education records under OP 77.13, requiring the
student to identify the part of the record at issue and
specify the student·s basis for requesting amendment or
annotation, requiring the student to identify the part of the
record to be changed and specify why; c. if amendment is
denied, the right to request a hearing under OP 77.13; and d.
a post-decision dispute-statement remedy requiring that a
student·s written statement be maintained with the contested
portion and disclosed whenever the contested portion is
disclosed.
e. that a student·s written access request must identify, as
precisely as possible, the record(s) the student wishes
to inspect, and that copies of written access requests
are to be maintained in the student file in which the
requested education record is maintained. 10. OP 77.13
provides that if a student is uncertain what office
maintains the education records at issue, the student may
submit a written request for assistance to the EVPA.
Plaintiff seeks relief under this step only to the extent
the OP 77.13 condition is met and/or the EVPA has
received such a request.
11. On December 30, 2025, Plaintiff submitted a written request
invoking OP 77.13 and Tex. Gov·t Code § 559.004 to inspect
and review the education-record materials relating to the
dismissal notation and to initiate the OP 77.13
correction/annotation process. For clarity, the
·education-record materials· and ·responsive set· referenced
in this Petition are limited to the education-record
materials relating to the transcript notation identified in
¶8.
12. Since Plaintiff·s December 30, 2025 request, Defendants have
32
32
shown for purposes of identifying the disputed record
offered only limited, escorted in-person inspection/review
sessions and have rescheduled or postponed sessions. Under
the current session format and postponements, Plaintiff has
not been provided a workable opportunity to complete
inspection/review of the responsive set within a reasonable
period or on a schedule reasonably calculated to permit
completion within OP 77.13·s stated time limits. Plaintiff
seeks an order requiring a workable, non-unduly burdensome
inspection/review opportunity and a reasonable schedule
reasonably calculated to permit Plaintiff to complete the
inspection/review step and identify record components ·as
precisely as possible,· as OP 77.13 contemplates, within OP
77.13·s stated time limits. Forty-five (45) days from
December 30, 2025 is February 13, 2026. Among other issues,
the current format impedes Plaintiff from efficiently
identifying document locations and record components ·as
precisely as possible· as OP 77.13 contemplates for an
amendment/annotation request. 12A. In written scheduling
communications implementing the inspection/review step,
TTUHSC·s Registrar·s office limited Plaintiff·s review to
escorted, in-person viewing at a designated location within
a 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. window, and stated that Plaintiff
would not be permitted to take any action that may create a
copy of any document. 12B. Plaintiff responded that he could
attend the offered multi-day inspection sessions under the
outlined conditions, while requesting a neutral
documentation approach so he could document what he was
components ·as precisely as possible· for the subsequent
written-request steps. 12C. In confirming the inspection
protocol, TTUHSC·s Registrar·s office denied Plaintiff·s
request to have a third-party observer present during
inspection/review and denied Plaintiff·s request to make an
audio recording during inspection/review. Plaintiff also
requested that his spouse be allowed to attend as an
observer and provided written consent, but the request was
denied.
12D. TTUHSC·s Registrar·s office scheduled the in-person
inspection/review sessions for January 5, 6, and 8, 2026, and
later added an additional in-person session on January 7, 2026,
all within the 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. window described in ¶12A.
13. Without workable inspection/review access, Plaintiff cannot
identify ·as precisely as possible· the record items to be
corrected or annotated, which OP 77.13 treats as a
prerequisite to completing the amendment request procedure.
33
33
14. Plaintiff requested that TTUHSC process his request under OP
77.13 and Tex. Gov·t Code § 559.004 (including issuance of
the written response contemplated by OP 77.13/§ 559.004).
Any later hearing step, if triggered by OP 77.13, is
referenced only to explain why workable inspection/review is
necessary. If the OP 77.13 process results in no change and
Plaintiff submits a dispute statement, Plaintiff seeks only
the ministerial maintenance of any dispute statement as part
of the education record as OP 77.13 contemplates.
14A. Because no written denial has issued within a workable
procedure, Plaintiff does not seek to compel any hearing step in
this petition.
15. Defendants have not arranged or implemented a workable
inspection/review format and a reasonable, workable schedule
reasonably calculated to complete the OP 77.13 record-access
and correction/annotation process within OP 77.13·s time
limits. Instead, Defendants have offered only the session
format described in ¶12 and have rescheduled or postponed
sessions, leaving Plaintiff without a workable opportunity
to complete inspection/review and proceed to the remaining
OP 77.13 / § 559.004 steps. V. CLAIMS FOR PROSPECTIVE RELIEF
(OFFICIAL-CAPACITY ONLY; NO DAMAGES)
COUNT 1 - Ultra Vires Injunctive Relief (Prospective Only)
15B. Structure of Count 1. Count 1 is pleaded in four elements:
(1) duty source - Tex. Gov·t Code § 559.004 as implemented
through OP 77.13; (2) who owes what - each Defendant·s
ministerial role in providing a workable inspection/review and
written-response procedure; (3) breach - the procedure described
below is not workable within the policy·s time-limit structure;
and (4) prospective remedy - an order requiring a workable
procedure without directing record content.
16. Tex. Gov·t Code § 559.004 requires a state governmental body
to establish a reasonable procedure under which an
individual is entitled to have the body correct information
about the individual that is incorrect, and the procedure
may not unduly burden an individual using the procedure. The
statute·s mandatory ·shall· and ·may not· language imposes
non-discretionary duties on the responsible officials.
TTUHSC has published HSC OP 77.13 as its student
education-records procedure implementing those duties for
education records. This Court need not determine whether any
34
34
information is inaccurate; only whether Defendants maintain
and implement a reasonable, non-unduly burdensome procedure
for Plaintiff·s request. 17. Plaintiff seeks only
prospective relief compelling performance of ministerial,
non-discretionary steps-i.e., a reasonable procedure that
may not unduly burden an individual and that is workable in
practice so inspection/review and the written-response step
can be completed within OP 77.13·s stated time limits.
Plaintiff does not ask the Court to design TTUHSC·s policies
or to dictate discretionary operational details beyond
requiring a workable, non-unduly burdensome opportunity and
a reasonable schedule. Defendants may select any reasonable
format, modality, and scheduling method that satisfies OP
77.13·s stated time limits and § 559.004·s ·may not unduly
burden· requirement; Plaintiff seeks only an order that the
procedure be workable in practice and timely implemented,
not an order dictating particular dates, times, or
modalities. Plaintiff seeks no order directing the
substantive outcome of any correction/annotation decision.
TTUHSC adopted HSC OP 77.13 as its published
education-record access and amendment/annotation procedure.
Defendants, as the officials responsible for implementing §
559.004·s mandatory procedure requirements through OP 77.13
within their respective roles, have non-discretionary duties
to: a. arrange an inspection and review opportunity that is
workable and not unduly burdensome in the sense that it
permits completion of the inspection/review step within OP
77.13·s stated time limits, in a format and on a schedule
reasonably calculated to allow completion within OP 77.13·s
time limits (including through the University Registrar for
transcript-related inspection/review logistics); b. if a
student is uncertain where the requested education records
are maintained and submits a written request for assistance
under OP 77.13, provide the written EVPA assistance
described by OP 77.13 identifying the appropriate custodial
office(s) and how to direct amendment/annotation requests;
c. accept and process amendment/annotation requests and
complete the procedure through issuance of a written
response within a reasonable time consistent with OP 77.13·s
stated time limits after a workable inspection/review
opportunity; and d. if the OP 77.13 process results in no
change and the student submits a written dispute statement,
maintain the dispute statement in the education record as
contemplated by OP 77.13, without expanding any disclosure
obligations beyond OP 77.13.
17A. Even if OP 77.13·s outer 45-day window has not yet elapsed,
35
35
§ 559.004 requires a procedure that is reasonable and may not
unduly burden an individual. A procedure that, as implemented,
prevents completion of inspection/review in time to proceed
through the written-response step is unreasonable and unduly
burdensome on its face and as applied. 18. Defendants act ultra
vires to the extent they refuse to perform, or unreasonably
impede, the non-discretionary duties alleged above, including by
(1) limiting inspection/review access to the escorted-session
format described in ¶12 and repeatedly postponing or
rescheduling sessions such that Plaintiff cannot complete
inspection/review within OP 77.13·s stated time limits; and (2)
failing to implement and adhere to a reasonable, workable
schedule reasonably calculated to allow completion within OP
77.13·s stated time limits. 19. Plaintiff seeks only prospective
relief requiring performance of ministerial steps and compliance
with the established record-procedure. Plaintiff does not seek,
and expressly disclaims, any adjudication of whether the
contested record content is true or false and does not seek any
order directing the substantive outcome of TTUHSC·s internal
decision on any requested correction or annotation.
19A. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for Defendants·
ongoing failure to implement and timely operate the
non-discretionary record-procedure steps pleaded above, and
Plaintiff seeks no damages. Without prospective injunctive
relief compelling timely procedure compliance, Plaintiff will
remain unable to complete the inspection/review and
written-response steps necessary to use the OP 77.13 / § 559.004
procedure.
COUNT 2 - Statutory Duty (Tex. Gov·t Code § 559.004)
(Alternative / Supporting Basis for Prospective Ultra Vires
Relief)
20. In addition to and in support of Count 1, Plaintiff pleads §
559.004 as an independent statutory source of the
non-discretionary duty to maintain and implement a
reasonable, non-unduly burdensome correction/annotation
procedure. Any order entered in this action should be
limited to compelling performance of ministerial procedure
steps and should not be construed as a determination of the
correctness of any contested education-record item or the
justification for any underlying decision referenced in the
record.
21. Defendants· failure to provide and implement a workable,
timely correction/annotation procedure for Plaintiff·s
36
36
December 30, 2025 request warrants prospective injunctive
relief directing implementation of a reasonable procedure,
including (if the OP 77.13 process results in no change and
Plaintiff submits a dispute statement) maintenance of any
dispute statement in the education record as contemplated by
OP 77.13, without expanding any disclosure obligations
beyond OP 77.13.
VI. PRAYER
22. Plaintiff prays that Defendants be cited to appear and
answer and that, after notice and hearing, the Court grant
prospective injunctive relief compelling implementation and
timely operation of the reasonable, non-unduly burdensome
procedure required by Tex. Gov·t Code § 559.004, as
implemented through TTUHSC·s published OP 77.13 process,
including orders requiring Defendants to perform the
non-discretionary, ministerial procedural steps described in
TTUHSC·s published OP 77.13 process (as referenced in this
petition) and required by Tex. Gov·t Code § 559.004, without
directing the substantive outcome of any record-content
dispute.
If temporary injunctive relief is sought or granted (temporary
restraining order or temporary injunction), Plaintiff requests
that any order comply with Tex. R. Civ. P. 683 and that the
Court fix the amount of security required by Tex. R. Civ. P.
684.
Plaintiff requests that the Court order Defendants to: a.
Provide Plaintiff a meaningful opportunity to inspect and review
the responsive education records under OP 77.13 by a method of
Defendants· choosing, so long as the method is not unduly
burdensome; at minimum, the inspection/review opportunity shall
include:
i. A written inspection schedule issued within seven (7) days
of the Court·s order (or such other deadline as the Court
sets), with sufficient sessions and duration to permit
completion of inspection/review of the responsive set
within OP 77.13·s stated time limits (or within a
Court-set completion deadline);
ii. An organized presentation of the responsive set
(electronically or in a single, paginated binder or
equivalent) sufficient to allow Plaintiff to identify
specific pages/items ·as precisely as possible· for an
37
37
amendment/annotation request;
iii. Permission for Plaintiff to take notes during
inspection/review in a non-disruptive manner (handwritten or
typed), and to record page/item identifiers (e.g., Bates/page
numbers) necessary to prepare an OP 77.13
amendment/annotation request; and
iv. Reasonable continuity of access (i.e., sessions not
repeatedly canceled or postponed without reasonable
alternative dates) such that the inspection/review step can
be completed;
b. If Plaintiff is uncertain where the requested education
records are maintained and submits a written request for
assistance under OP 77.13, provide the written EVPA
assistance described by OP 77.13 identifying the custodial
office(s) maintaining the relevant education records and
written instructions for directing amendment/annotation
requests to the appropriate custodians;
c. Accept, docket, and process Plaintiff·s OP 77.13
amendment/annotation request(s) in accordance with the
published procedure, and complete the procedure through
issuance of the required written response within a reasonable
time-and in any event within twenty-one (21) days after
receipt of Plaintiff·s amendment/annotation request(s)
submitted following completion of inspection/review-without
ordering any particular substantive amendment, correction, or
annotation outcome;
d. If and only if the OP 77.13 process results in no change and
Plaintiff submits a written dispute statement pursuant to OP
77.13, maintain and associate the dispute statement with the
contested portion of the education record and include it with
any disclosure of the contested portion to the extent OP
77.13 itself requires, without expanding any disclosure
obligations beyond OP 77.13;
e. Provide Plaintiff, at or before the first inspection session,
a simple written inventory of the responsive set sufficient
to identify categories and approximate volume (e.g., a table
of contents or folder list), solely to enable completion of
inspection/review and preparation of an amendment/annotation
request;
f. File a short compliance notice with the Court within ten (10)
38
38
days after the Court's order stating (i) the inspection
method selected, (ii) the inspection schedule, and (iii) the
name/title of the official responsible for implementing OP
77.13 logistics for Plaintiff's request;
g. Provide that Defendants shall not deny, refuse, or deem
untimely any OP 77.13 amendment/annotation request or
follow-on step on the ground that any OP 77.13 time window
elapsed where the inability to complete inspection/review or
identify items "as precisely as possible" resulted from
Defendants' inspection format, postponements, or other undue
burdens; any internal time periods that would otherwise run
against Plaintiff are tolled until completion of the
Court-ordered inspection/review opportunity; and
h. Preserve the responsive set and maintain it in the organized
format used for inspection (including pagination/Bates
identifiers) during the pendency of the OP 77.13 / § 559.004
procedure; any later-located responsive items shall be logged
and added to the inventory and responsive set in a way that
allows Plaintiff to identify them with stable page/item
identifiers.
Plaintiff requests that any relief granted be expressly limited
to ministerial, procedure-only compliance with OP 77.13 and Tex.
Gov't Code § 559.004 and entered without any finding regarding
the truth, falsity, or correctness of any record content and
without ordering any substantive change to any transcript or
education record. Plaintiff further requests that any
implementation mechanism ordered by the Court be administered in
a manner that protects confidential student information
(including through redaction, protective order, or in camera
procedures as appropriate), solely as needed to implement the
ministerial record-procedure compliance relief requested herein
and without expanding the scope of the education records at
issue.
Plaintiff respectfully requests an expedited hearing setting at
the Court's earliest practical availability consistent with
notice requirements, in order to allow the prospective
procedural relief requested to operate within the time limits
referenced in the published OP 77.13 process described in this
Petition.
If the Court determines any pleading deficiency regarding
jurisdiction or proper parties, Plaintiff requests leave to
amend to cure any curable defect.
39
39
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kevin N. Bass
Kevin N. Bass (pro se)
512-333-4092
kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (Tex. R. Civ. P. 21a)
I certify that a true and correct copy of this Third Amended
Verified Original Petition was served in accordance with Texas
Rule
21a on
on January
January 21,
21, 2026,
2026, on
on any
any counsel
counsel
Rule of
of Civil
Civil Procedure
Procedure 21a
of record (if any) via the electronic filing manager. To
Plaintiff·s knowledge, no defendant has appeared and no counsel
of record has been designated.
This certificate concerns service of this filing under Tex. R.
Civ. P. 21a and does not substitute for issuance/service of
citation under Tex. R. Civ. P. 99 as to any party not yet served
with citation or not yet appeared.
KEVIN BASS Kevin N. Bass
VERIFICATION (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 132.001)
My name is Kevin N. Bass. My date of birth is 12/07/1984. My
address is
I
declare under penalty of perjury that the facts stated in this
Petition are true and correct.
Executed in
in Lubbock
Lubbock County,
County, Texas,
Texas, on
on January
January 21,
21, 2026.
2026.
Executed
KEVIN BASS Kevin N. Bass
40
40