No. 21-1563

Reynaldo Antonio De Los Santos, et al. v. William Bosworth, In the Official Capacity as Employee and/or Administrator and/or Policymaker and/or Official of Johnson County, Texas, et al.

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2022-06-14
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: civil-rights county-commissioners due-process government-code indigent-appointment legal-counsel open-meetings open-meetings-act public-funds texas-government-code texas-open-meetings-act
Latest Conference: 2022-12-02 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)

Plaintiffs claimed and provided documented evidence showing that multiple Defendants as members of commissioners courts from two Texas counties failed to comply with both the Texas Open Meetings Act (the "Act") and the Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code (the "Code"). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit chose not to address these violations. Regarding the removal of counsel from a local indigent appointment list, state statutes specifically mandate that indigent appointments be managed in a fair, neutral, and non-discriminatory manner. The questions presented are:

1. Whether conditions precedent that are specified in both the Act and in the Code must be met before county commissioners courts, when operating as governmental bodies, are authorized to expend public funds necessary to retain defensive legal counsel prior to filing responsive pleadings or motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12.

2. Whether the Fifth Circuit errored by failing to apply the facts of this case to the requirements from the Act, requirements from the Code, and to precedent in Smith Cty. v. Thornton, 726 S.W.2d 2, 3 (Tex. 1987) (holding that a Commissioners Court's failure to comply with the Texas Open Meetings Act regarding initial general public notification requirements then resulted in subsequent related actions performed by that commissioners court to be void).

3. Whether the Circuit Court errored in holding that any due process property violation never occurred because Respondents had "discretion" on the removal of counsel from the various indigent court appointment lists even though the counties' local rules do not contain the term "discretion" and state statutes require that a fair, neutral, and non-discriminatory process be applied before removing counsel from such lists thus together signifying basic due process entitlements.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether conditions precedent that are specified in both the Texas Open Meetings Act and the Texas Government Code must be met before county commissioners courts are authorized to expend public funds to retain legal counsel

Docket Entries

2022-12-05
Rehearing DENIED.
2022-11-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/2/2022.
2022-10-25
2022-10-03
Petition DENIED.
2022-07-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
2022-06-29
Waiver of right of respondents William Bosworth, Wayne Bridewell, Sydney Hewlett, David Evans and John Neill to respond filed.
2022-06-23
Waiver of right of respondents Johnson County, Texas, Somervell County, Texas, Robert Mayfield, et al. to respond filed.
2022-06-09
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 14, 2022)

Attorneys

Johnson County, Texas, Somervell County, Texas, Robert Mayfield, et al.
Grant D. BlaiesBlaies & Hightower LLP, Respondent
Reynaldo A. De Los Santos
Ricardo De Los SantosLaw Office of Ricardo De Los Santos P.C., Petitioner
William Bosworth, Wayne Bridewell, Sydney Hewlett, David Evans and John Neill
Benjamin S. WaltonOffice of the Attorney General of Texas, Respondent