Motion to Amend/Correct the motion for leave (Dkt. 26)¶
Bass v. TTUHSC, No. 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV (N.D. Tex.) · Dkt. 32 · 2026-02-15 · 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 32
Filed 02/15/26
Page 1 of 8
PageID 551
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
KEVIN N. BASS,
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
v.
§ Civil Action No. 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
§
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH
§
SCIENCES CENTER, et al.,
§
Defendants.
§
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW PROPOSED SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND SUBSTITUTE PROPOSED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT BASED ON
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
Plaintiff Kevin N. Bass, pro se, respectfully moves for leave to (1) withdraw the
Proposed Second Amended Complaint filed with Doc. 26, and (2) substitute the attached
Proposed Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") based on newly discovered evidence obtained
after the SAC was prepared. In support, Plaintiff states:
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff previously sought leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 26). Since
that filing, Plaintiff has obtained newly discovered evidence through FERPA document
production and other sources that directly addresses elements challenged in Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. 27). This evidence warrants substitution of the proposed pleading to ensure the
Court decides the motion on the most accurate and complete allegations.
II. NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE JUSTIFYING SUBSTITUTION
The following categories of evidence were discovered after the SAC was prepared:
1
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 32
Filed 02/15/26
Page 2 of 8
PageID 552
A. Third-Party Publication Evidence
FERPA review revealed that BOLO/exclusion directives were disseminated beyond
TTUHSC to University Medical Center (UMC) and other clinical affiliates. Internal
communications reflect that a recipient texted a colleague at UMC showing "A POSTER
SAYING THAT IF ANYONE SEES KEVIN BASS AT UMC TO CONTACT SECURITY
IMMEDIATELY."
This evidence directly addresses the publication element of Plaintiff's stigma-plus claim
(Count 4), which Defendants challenge in their MTD.
B. Berk "Free Speech Issue" Surveillance Initiation
Evidence obtained shows that former Dean Steven Berk initiated speech surveillance in
August 2020, flagging Plaintiff's Twitter posts as a "FREE SPEECH ISSUE??" while noting
Plaintiff had not used the school's name. This evidence:
- Extends the pattern of speech monitoring to 3+ years before removal
- Demonstrates explicit awareness that speech was constitutionally protected
- Establishes institutional motive predating the November 2023 tweet by over three years
C. Korinek Internal Dissent
TTUHSC's own counselor (Korinek) wrote on December 8, 2023: "First, I want to say
that in my opinion Kevin is not a danger to anyone. I don't believe he ever had any intention of
physically harming anyone at TTUHSC." Korinek further warned of "confirmation bias" in
evaluating Plaintiff. This warning was ignored.
D. Additional "No Threat" Admissions
Document review revealed that at least six TTUHSC officials stated Plaintiff was not a
threat, directly contradicting the BOLO's "threatening statements" characterization.
2
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 32
Filed 02/15/26
Page 3 of 8
PageID 553
E. Specific Third-Party Rejections
Plaintiff has documented specific medical school rejections (St. James, St. Matthew's)
following disclosure of TTUHSC's stigmatizing status, establishing concrete ongoing harm for
standing purposes.
III. PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE TAC
The TAC maintains the same structure and claims as the SAC, with the following
additions:
1. NEW EVIDENCE PARAGRAPHS: - ¶55: Structural bias (process administrator drafted
appellate decisions) - ¶56: Korinek confirmation bias warning - ¶72: Cobbs
"professionalism workaround" blueprint - ¶116-117: UMC BOLO dissemination and
verbatim language - ¶129-130: Cobbs personal involvement - ¶133-134: Speech
acknowledgments and surveillance chain (2020-2023) - ¶136-138: Forbes pattern
evidence - ¶152: Specific third-party rejections - ¶172: Additional due process violations
- ¶178-180: Williams "no terroristic threats" checkbox; Board's hedged
"perceived/potential" qualifiers; eight officials' no-threat admissions - ¶190-193:
Institutional retaliation pattern; comparator evidence; concrete harms - ¶211-212:
Concrete ongoing harm documentation; name-clearing hearing denial
2. STRENGTHENED STANDING ALLEGATIONS for prospective relief claims
3. FIREWALL PROVISIONS MAINTAINED from SAC (¶3, ¶4, ¶167, ¶215) - No OP
77.13 / Tex. Gov't Code § 559.004 enforcement request - No transcript
correction/annotation order request - Transcript mentions for injury/standing only
3
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 32
Filed 02/15/26
Page 4 of 8
PageID 554
IV. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Rule 15 Favors Amendment
Leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
The Fifth Circuit has "a bias in favor of granting leave to amend." Smith v. EMC Corp., 393 F.3d
590, 595 (5th Cir. 2004).
Amendment may be denied only for "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, repeated
failure to cure deficiencies, undue prejudice, or futility." Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182
(1962).
B. None of the Foman Factors Apply
1. No Undue Delay: Plaintiff seeks substitution promptly after discovering the new evidence
through FERPA production.
2. No Bad Faith: Plaintiff is attempting to present the most accurate pleading based on newly
available evidence.
3. No Repeated Failure: This is Plaintiff's first request to substitute a proposed amended
complaint based on new evidence.
4. No Undue Prejudice: Defendants have not yet answered. The case is at the pleading stage.
Allowing substitution imposes no prejudice beyond requiring Defendants to respond to a
more detailed complaint.
5. No Futility: The new evidence strengthens claims that survive Rule 12 analysis.
Publication evidence, speech surveillance evidence, and direct admissions address the
precise elements Defendants challenge.
4
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 32
Filed 02/15/26
Page 5 of 8
PageID 555
C. Pro Se Litigants Receive Liberal Construction
Courts construe pro se pleadings liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21
(1972); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Plaintiff should be permitted to present his
claims with the benefit of newly discovered evidence.
V. EFFECT ON PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS
If the Court grants this motion and permits filing of the TAC, the pending Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 27) should be:
A. DENIED AS MOOT because it addresses a superseded pleading; or
B. DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling directed at the operative TAC.
The Court should not expend resources deciding a motion aimed at a complaint that will
no longer be operative. Plaintiff has separately filed a Response to the pending Motion to
Dismiss to preserve all arguments regardless of the Court's sequencing.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:
1. GRANT this motion;
2. PERMIT Plaintiff to withdraw the Proposed Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 26);
3. PERMIT Plaintiff to file the attached Proposed Third Amended Complaint as the operative
pleading;
4. DENY Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 27) as MOOT or WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
and
5. Order Defendants to respond to the TAC within the time prescribed by the Federal Rules.
Dated: February 14, 2026
5
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 32
Filed 02/15/26
Page 6 of 8
PageID 556
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kevin N. Bass
Kevin N. Bass
Email: kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com
Phone: 512-333-4092
Pro Se Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1, Plaintiff contacted Defendants' counsel via email on
February 13, 2026, to confer regarding this motion. Defendants' counsel did not respond prior to
filing.
/s/ Kevin N. Bass
Kevin N. Bass
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on February 14, 2026, I served this Motion and the attached Proposed Third
Amended Complaint by the method of service authorized by the Court and applicable rules on all
counsel of record.
/s/ Kevin N. Bass
Kevin N. Bass
6
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 32
Filed 02/15/26
Page 7 of 8
PageID 557
PROPOSED ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
KEVIN N. BASS,
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
v.
§ Civil Action No. 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
§
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH
§
SCIENCES CENTER, et al.,
§
Defendants.
§
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW
PROPOSED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SUBSTITUTE PROPOSED
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Withdraw Proposed Second Amended
Complaint and Substitute Proposed Third Amended Complaint Based on Newly Discovered
Evidence (Doc. ___).
Having considered the motion, the Court finds that good cause exists under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to grant the requested relief.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED.
2. The Proposed Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 26) is WITHDRAWN.
3. The Proposed Third Amended Complaint attached to Plaintiff's Motion is deemed FILED
as of the date of this Order and shall be the operative pleading in this action.
4. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 27) is DENIED AS MOOT / DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE [Court to select].
5. Defendants shall file their response to the Third Amended Complaint within twenty-one
(21) days of this Order.
7
Case 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV
Document 32
Filed 02/15/26
SIGNED this _____ day of __________________, 2026.
________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
Page 8 of 8
PageID 558