Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 1 Filed 03/07/25 Page 1 of 14
FILED
UNITED STATES of AMERICA 5TH CIRCUIT AUSTIN DIVISION COURT
2025 MAR 7 PM 4: 58
Julian Reyes
Plaintiff
WESTERN DISTRICT OF COURT TEXAS
CLERK, US DISTRICT
BY
$ 800
REPUTY
§
V.
§
Case no. 1:25 CV00347 ADA
§
CITY OF AUSTIN, INC,
§
AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT,
§
OFFICERS SPEES, PITRE,
PIORONNE, ET AL, OTHER
§
PARTIES TO BE LISTED
ALL DEFENDANTS
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR
OFFICIAL CAPACITIES,
RESPECTIVELY
Defendants
Civil Rights Complaint
1. Plaintiff: Pro Se, Julian Reyes 10900 Research Blvd Ste 160C Box 147
Austin, Texas 78759 mailbox.
2. Defendants being: CITY OF AUSTIN, INC., AUSTIN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, AND THE FOLLOWING CITY OF AUSTIN PUBLIC
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: OFFICERS SPEES, PITRE, PIORONNE, ET. AL.
More to be named later after proper discovery and release by the City of Austin
of the officers' names and all responsible parties. All defendants individually
and in their official capacities. Address to City of Austin Law Department is at
1
Reyes V Spees, et al. 03-10-2025
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
Document 1
Filed 03/07/25
Page 2 of 14
301 E 2nd Street, Austin, Texas 78701. Austin Police Department is at 715 E.
8th Street, Austin, Texas 78701.
These are proper addresses to the best of my knowledge at this time.
3. This incident and complaint happened in Austin, Texas, which this Court
has jurisdiction over. As the 5th Circuit encompasses all of Texas, Louisiana
and Mississippi, federally, under jurisdiction of law. This complaint brings up
critical Constitutional issues, that are novel and important. Therefore I request
the Western District Court of the U.S.A. in Austin, to try my Civil Complaint
in court involving 1st, 4th, 14th, 8th Constitutional Amendments both in the
State of Texas and similar Constitutional Rights amendments of the Unites
States of America, all as deprivation of those rights violates section U.S.C. 42
1983. As well as section 1985 Conspiracy of Parties. As multiple agents of
Municipal and Corporate government did conspire to deprive me of my rights.
They were all involved in this crime against myself and essentially the rights
afforded to all the Citizens and of their Free Press.
4. In this latest civil complaint, on or about March 10th 2023, in the City of
Austin, Travis County, Texas, U.S.A.. Under this Court's functional and legal
jurisdiction, Officers Spees, Pitre, Pironne, and others did conspire together
and with others to deprive me of my rights.
2
Reyes V Spees. et al. 03-10-2025
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 1 Filed 03/07/25 Page 3 of 14
For several years now I have been an artist and musician in Austin, Texas. I
have performed many times in Austin, and often I protest the killings by Austin
police of unarmed people and our dogs. Since the City repeatedly tries to hide this
information from the public through various means, media, web, information
requests, and by arresting people speaking about police abuse, police killings, dog
killings by police, and targeting members of the Press for arrests when they are in
the process of recording video or protesting Austin police and their public
interactions.
So you see, I had been speaking to people around the City of Austin's
downtown area and other areas thorough my music and voice to give voice to the
unheard and the voiceless victims of police use of lethal force in Austin for some
time.
On this date I had played some music and listed several people that had been
shot and killed by Austin police, specifically Landon Nobles, Larry Eugene, Kevin
Brown, Daniel Rocha, Pickle, Raj Moonshing, Aquantis Givens, and others, while
playing electric guitar. I also mentioned puppycides by Austin Police including my
beloved Shiner Bock, Cisco and others. I was informing the public of the news,
through artistic music format, while filming also. I also had 2 other people with
me filming and documenting. At some point I was about to pack up and transition
to only filming police interactions with the general public for the rest of the night
with my film crew. I informed them as such and was winding down my rock set.
3
Reyes V Spees, et al. 03-10-2025
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
Document 1
Filed 03/07/25
Page 4 of 14
When an officer, Pioronne, I believe, came up and said I would have to stop
playing music and speaking or I would be ticketed. I said ok, I'll take a ticket.
And then ofc. Pioronne said that he would go get his ticket book and return to
ticket me if I was still playing and speaking. I told him to go ahead, and expedite
it. He left to go get backup to arrest, not ticket me, pre textually making up
probable cause in advance.
I then unplugged and powered off my equipment, began packing things up
and unplugging all sound and power adapter cables. The main amp was off, there
was no amplified music when the officers (SPEES, PITRE, PIORONNE, ET AL)
arrived and they played the game that I was refusing to comply. I informed them
that I was unplugged and packing up, not playing or singing about anything. And
then Spees said that I refused to comply and misusing the APD General Orders,
APD Police Policy, he then did lie, and conspire with the other officers to crate a
false arrest and declare that I failed to comply with a "City noise ordinance and
General Orders to comply" and that the ticket was now an arrest for Free Speech
and Freedom of the Press. The officers arrested me, accosted others that were
filming, continued to harass and threaten people that were filming the incident and
arrest. And furthermore I was arrested for a class C Misdemeanor crime of noise, a
non-arrest able offense. The officers had to lie and some committed perjuries on
the affidavits of arrest in order to silence and chill our filming, music and freedoms
4
Reyes V Spees, et al. 03-10-2025
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 1 Filed 03/07/25 Page 5 of 14
of speech, etc. They conspired and perjured to falsely arrest a compliant person
exercising his God-given rights to Rock in Austin!
The case was dismissed quite a while later. I was pro se defendant in that
case. Dismissed in Municipal Court by Municipal Prosecutors in the interest of
Justice.
I have filed many police complaints, and I believe on this case as well, with
the APD and City of Austin's Office of Police Oversight. To date, I have been
unable to determine the result, if any, and the City will not communicate this issue
with me.
Therefore I pray that the Court accepts my Civil Suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983
and 1985.
Filming, Music, and expressive Speech are not crimes in a Democracy like
ours. The officers listed arrested me and harassed me for what I do to inform the
Public as an artist and member of the Free Press. They violated the Privacy
Protection Act of 1980 when they seized me with my camera equipment. You can
beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride in other words the police can retaliate
when they want to if you are playing music, speaking or filming them even if you
are the press, even if it's illegal what they are doing, it's how the police can
retaliate and you still lose your rights and are deprived and injured and
5
Reyes V Spees. et al. 03-10-2025
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 1 Filed 03/07/25 Page 6 of 14
traumatized. To deprive you and prevent you and others from being informed about
police murders, puppycide, realizing their rights, freedoms and protections of law.
Over and over again. Until there are no rights remaining for us. Erosion of
freedom is real. Justice is needed on this case a novel case with important
constitutional questions and implications to our freedoms and rights in this
Country. See Turner V Driver Glick V Cunliffe, Buehler V City of Austin, etc,
The officers at APD all have to comply with Austin Police Department's
Policy. The Policy says they must "know and comply" with the law, statutes,
ordinances and the Constitutions of the State of Texas and the United States of
America.
See APD Police Policy https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/
General%20Orders.pdf
PAGE 558
900.1.1 RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW AND COMPLY
The rules of conduct set forth in this order do not serve as an all-inclusive
list of requirements, limitations, or prohibitions on employee conduct and
activities; employees are required to know and comply with all Department
policies, procedures, and written directives.
6
Reyes V Spees. et al. 03-10-2025
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 1 Filed 03/07/25 Page 7 of 14
(a) Employees will maintain a working knowledge and comply with the
laws, ordinances, statutes, regulations, and APD written directives which pertain to
their assigned duties.
(b) Employees who do not understand their assigned duties or
responsibilities will read the relevant directives and guidelines, and will consult
their immediate supervisor for clarification and explanation.
(c) A lack of knowledge of an APD written directive is not a defense to
disciplinary action.
Page 13
100.3 CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
All employees shall observe and comply with every person's clearly
established rights under the United States and Texas Constitutions.
Under current City Policy the City has removed the officers' discretion to
arrest people in retaliation for class c, non-violent, fine-only offenses.
Clearly established law like the rights to film, to personal freedom, property
rights, due process, freely travel, freely associate, free speech, political beliefs,
freely assemble, and to film the police in public.
7
Reyes V Spees, et al. 03-10-2025
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 1 Filed 03/07/25 Page 8 of 14
A non-violent person is not supposed to be arrested for a class c
misdemeanor in Austin, according to City Council's directives to APD.
See: https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/
2019.08_ilrc_freedom_city_policies-final.pdf
Not to mention there is an ongoing pattern and practice of bias and targeting
against people of color and the indigenous, like myself. And people like me should
not be cruelly, repeatedly targeted by police and punished for showing and stating
this information or opinions.
Discovery of evidence is required. This is also the second time I've been
arrested or ticketed by APD for free speech in retaliation for my musical
expression.
I believe that I have filed a complaint with the Police Oversight Office
previously. Nothing was done. I have no access to their files, they consider it
"APD protected personnel records." I hope to attain more information form
discovery about their failures to hold the police accountable and transparent to the
public. As is their charge and oath.
8
Reyes V Spees. et al. 03-10-2025
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 1 Filed 03/07/25 Page 9 of 14
All while holding this misdemeanor case, without merits, over my head for
around 2 years. Increasing the stress and burdens on my freedom, happiness, and
my pursuit of life.
5. Julian Reyes, a pro se plaintiff, and am seeking full damages in the
amount of $500,000 U.S.A. dollars for all losses, of lost time, stolen freedoms and
rights, and for the Constitutional and other violations specified below and in other
later amendments to this complaint, as more information becomes available and
through discovery of evidence to come. And censure, punishments and charges for
the responsible parties. And injunctions to protect Citizens' rights whether
unhoused on the streets of Austin or members of the Press to protect us from future
targeting, stalking, retaliation, false arrest, deprivation of rights, harassment,
threats by the Austin Police Department, City of Austin, inc., and their agents,
acting alone or in groups, most especially those involved in filming police
interactions in public or defending their established domiciles from theft under
color of law by 'The State.' Reyes is also seeking reformative justice, remedy, and
mediation on the issues of training, injustice, patterns and practice of police abuses
that led up to this egregious incident by Austin Police Department, the City of
Austin and the defendants. To again protect our expression of music, free speech
and free Press in this Country, bolster and defend our rights under law and force of
law.
9
Reyes V Spees, et al. 03-10-2025
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 1 Filed 03/07/25 Page 10 of 14
In fact I was arrested about prior for exercising my rights and filming. And
for advocating for real housing solutions instead of cruel and unusual punishment
by APD prior to this arrest. I was previously arrested for a class c, fine only,
misdemeanor this Sunday October 24th, 2021, for my free speech on a public
sidewalk. And this is one of over a dozen or so arrests by Austin Police agents,
acting together, to deprive me of my rights to free speech and free press,
transparency of government, accountability of police, and due process rights. My
cameras have been seized and the Austin Police Officer, Detective Stitler and
Municipal Court Judge Meyerson are tougher still refusing to give me back my
primary work equipment and evidence to defend myself in court, even though it
has been about 2 months since the unlawful seizure of these items. I cannot do the
work of the free press here in Austin without my work tools. There has been a
clear pattern of deprivation of rights in a similar manner in this case.
This deprivation and punishment also gives me more PTSD and causes me
inability to work, including a long criminal history for my free speech which is
also a barrier. I believe that he federal civil courts are the venue for seeking justice
and protections of law for all people in this matter. And is ongoing, causing me
harm and loss of not only rights and freedoms but pursuit of happiness. This long
10
Reyes V Spees, et al. 03-10-2025
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 1 Filed 03/07/25 Page 11 of 14
history of multiple APD/City of Austin retaliatory arrests and cases are very time
consumptive, stressful and makes it hard to keep them active and straight. They get
mixed up often by me and others. It's hard to have this many retaliative cases
against me and still live and there are too many cases. An ongoing pattern and
practice of deprivations and abuse by the Austin Police Department and the City of
Austin with their agents enforcing laws in a retaliatory and unlawful manner.
That is why I filed this complaint in this case, as no other means of accountability
of justice worked. This court has the responsibility for justice and access to law in
this case. And also this Court has the jurisdiction in this case.
There are unresolved complicated but very important inalienable
constitutional issues and basic rights at risk in this case, including but not limited
to first amendment rights of free speech and free press, transparency of
government, accountability of public servants and a right to a redress of grievances
should we have our rights deprived by public servants. Freedom to Speech,
Expression, Music and recording police, without retaliation or targeting for doing
so.
Who can film whom without fear? Should the people also be without fear to film
the police. Or should the people be in fear of the police for filming and free speech
like I am now? It is a one-way relationship with the government and it's agents
empowered with these inalienable rights and not the the same for the people? Who
11
Reyes V Spees, et al. 03-10-2025
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 1 Filed 03/07/25 Page 12 of 14
serves whom, with regard to filming and free speech? That is the basic question as
I see it now.
These defendants and others are working as confederates together in
conspiracy of parties against our rights.
All of these public servants swore an Oath to defend the people and
Constitutional law of the U.S.A. and yet are those Oaths being fulfilled fully in this
incident? We must review and scrutinize this issue to truly have freedom, rights
and justice for all in the U.S.A. for the people that the law is meant to serve, the
citizen, the indigent, the regular Joes of America, like myself.
Current case law is in jeopardy as these are our fundamental rights at risk in
this case. Well-established personal, property and speech protected rights have
been taken including freedom to travel freely, freedom of assembly, free speech,
freedom of the press, protection from unlawful arrest, search and seizure,
protection from police retaliation, abuse, cruel and unusual punishment, due
process of law, conspiracy of parties and 42 U.S.C. section 1983 originally called
the Klu Klux Klan Act which was the Congress' law to curb deprivation of Rights
for people in the U.S.A. created post Civil War, Civil Rights era of United States of
American history. These rights are not only fundamental, they protect our persons,
property, abilities, and our very lives are at risk because of this type of arrests and
retaliation by the City, the Police and their co-conspirators, working together.
12
Reyes V Spees. et al. 03-10-2025
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 1 Filed 03/07/25 Page 13 of 14
See Turner V Driver, Glick V Cunliffe
I am just a layman and pro se, without legal counsel trying to do my best to get this
civil rights complaint filed in time and as accurately as I am able.
In the interests of Justice and in the interests of the Court to process and progress
this case to it's due justice and equitable access to Justice and resolution of these
issues of law that impact many citizens' inalienable rights, transparency of
government, accountability and justice for all, including indigent pro se litigants
like me.
If a hearing would be necessary, I pray for that opportunity to show and state
my case as to why I cannot keep up with this case as if I had the abilities and
access of legal advice or counsel. Oral Argument Requested. No rights waived,
all rights reserved.
Jury Demand
I pray the Court allow a Trial by Jury on this case, as it progresses.
13
Reyes V Spees, et al. 03-10-2025
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 1 Filed 03/07/25 Page 14 of 14
SIGNED this
7th day of March
, 2025
.
Respectfully submitted,
awars
/S/ Julian Reyes
, pro se
Signature Pro Se
Mr. Julian Reyes
512 785-1749
10900 Research Blvd
Suite 160c Box 147
Austin, Texas, U.S.A. 78759
justicenowpeople@protonmail.com
14
Reyes V Spees, et al. 03-10-2025
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
Document 1-1
Filed 03/07/25
Page 1 of 1
Attachment 7 - Civil Cover Sheet & Instructions
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17)
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I (a) PLAINTIFFS
Julian Reyes'
Prose
DEFENDANTS City of Austin, Inc.
APD, ofcs spees, Pioronne, Pitre,etc
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
Travis
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
Travis
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES. USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Prose Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, 10900 and Telephone Number) Research blud
Attorneys (If Known)
56160c BOX147
Austin 1778759
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Box Only)
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "X" in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only)
and One Box for Defendant)
I U.S. Government
3
Federal Question
DEF
PTF
DEF
Plaintiff
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
Citizen of This State
1
1
Incorporated or Principal Place
4
4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government
4 Diversity
Citizen of Another State
2
2 Incorporated and Principal Place
5
5
Defendant
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a
3
3 Foreign Nation
6
6
Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an "X" in One Box Only)
Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT
TORTS
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
BANKRUPTCY
OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance
PERSONAL INJURY
PERSONAL INJURY
625 Drug Related Seizure
422 Appeal 28 USC 158
375 False Claims Act
120 Marine
310 Airplane
365 Personal Injury
of Property 21 USC 881
423 Withdrawal
376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act
315 Airplane Product
Product Liability
690 Other
28 USC 157
3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument
Liability
367 Health Care/
400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment
320 Assault, Libel &
Pharmaceutical
PROPERTY RIGHTS
410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment
Slander
Personal Injury
820 Copyrights
430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act
330 Federal Employers'
Product Liability
830 Patent
450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Liability
368 Asbestos Personal
835 Patent Abbreviated
460 Deportation
Student Loans
340 Marine
Injury Product
New Drug Application
470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans)
345 Marine Product
Liability
840 Trademark
Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
LABOR
SOCIAL SECURITY
480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran's Benefits
350 Motor Vehicle
370 Other Fraud
710 Fair Labor Standards
861 HIA (1395ff)
490 Cable/Sat TV
160 Stockholders' Suits
355 Motor Vehicle
371 Truth in Lending
Act
862 Black Lung (923)
850 Securities/Commodities/
190 Other Contract
Product Liability
380 Other Personal
720 Labor/Management
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Exchange
195 Contract Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Property Damage
Relations
864 SSID Title XVI
890 Other Statutory Actions
196 Franchise
Injury
385 Property Damage
740 Railway Labor Act
865 RSI (405(g))
891 Agricultural Acts
362 Personal Injury
Product Liability
751 Family and Medical
893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice
Leave Act
895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY
CIVIL RIGHTS
PRISONER PETITIONS
790 Other Labor Litigation
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
Act
210 Land Condemnation
440 Other Civil Rights
Habeas Corpus:
791 Employee Retirement
870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
896 Arbitration
220 Foreclosure
441 Voting
463 Alien Detainee
Income Security Act
or Defendant)
899 Administrative Procedure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
442 Employment
510 Motions to Vacate
871 IRS-Third Party
Act/Review or Appeal of
240 Torts to Land
443 Housing/
Sentence
26 USC 7609
Agency Decision
245 Tort Product Liability
Accommodations
530 General
950 Constitutionality of
290 All Other Real Property
445 Amer. w/Disabilities
535 Death Penalty
IMMIGRATION
State Statutes
Employment
Other:
462 Naturalization Application
446 Amer. w/Disabilities
540 Mandamus & Other
465 Other Immigration
Other
550 Civil Rights
Actions
448 Education
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" in One Box Only)
Original
2
Removed from
3 Remanded from
4 Reinstated or
5 Transferred from
6 Multidistrict
8 Multidistrict
Proceeding
State Court
Appellate Court
Reopened
Another District
Litigation - -
Litigation
(specify)
Transfer
Direct File
Cite the U.S. Ciyil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
Brief description
US(Sections feberal of cause: deprivation ot 1983 G Rights 1985 etc. + Conspiracy otparties
VII. REQUESTED IN
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT:
$500,000 DEMAND $
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
JURY DEMAND:
Yes
No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY
(See instructions):
JUDGE
DOCKET NUMBER
DATE
FOR OFFICE
3-7-2025 USE ONLY Julin Rugs SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD po se
RECEIPT #
AMOUNT
APPLYING IFP
JUDGE
MAG. JUDGE
45
Rev. Ed. October 26, 2017
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 2 Filed 03/07/25 Page 1 of 6
2025 MAR FILED PM
Attachment 5 - Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Affidavit in
Support (Austin Division OF QULY)
TEXAS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
REPUTY
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
§
Julian Reyes, prose §
1:25 CV00347 ADA
V. Cityof Austin, Inc.,
§ Case No.
Austin Police Dept,
§
officers spees, Pitre,
§
Pidronne, etal.
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AND FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT
I, Juloan Reyes
declare that I am the Applicant in the above-entitled proceeding. I am requesting permission to
proceed without being required to prepay fees, costs, or give security therefor. In support of my
application, I state that because of my poverty, I am unable to pay the costs of said proceeding or
give security therefor and I believe I am entitled to relief. The nature of my action is briefly stated
as follows:
Civil Rights Complaint Deprivation
of Rights
Applicant's Name: Julian Reyles
In further support of this application, I answer the following questions: u Ador color Lane
Applicant's Home Address: 10900 Research Blvd ste 160c Box14>
Aus tin TX 78759
Questions Regarding Ability to Pay
Employment:
Are you now employed? Yes
No
Am Self Employed
If yes, how much do you earn per month? $ varies appx, $200
If no, give month and year of last employment:
How much did you earn per month? $
36
Rev. Ed. October 26, 2017
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 2 Filed 03/07/25 Page 2 of 6
Name and Address of current or prior employer: Self-employed as Press
for Chal lenger Street Nelspaper (501c3) + Stringn
If married, state Spouse's name:
Is your Spouse employed? Yes
No
If working, how much does your spouse earn? $
Do you receive any funds from relatives or for child support? If so, how much per month do you
receive? $
Other Income:
Have you received within the past 12 months any income from a business, profession or other form
of self-employment, or in the form of rent payments, interest, dividends, retirement or annuity
payments (such as Social Security benefits), or other sources, including government benefits (such
as A.F.D.C. or Social Security disability benefits)?
Yes
No
If yes, give the amount and identify the sources:
Received
Sources
$
$
$
$
37
Rev. Ed. October 26, 2017
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH- Document 2 Filed 03/07/25 - Page-3-of 6
I
Cash:
Have you any cash on hand or money in savings or checking accounts?
Yes
No
If yes, state total amount: $ 65
If neither you nor your spouse receive income of any kind, how are you able to pay for food and
shelter?
I stay in my car + couch-surf.
Property:
Do you own any real estate, stocks, bonds, notes, automobiles, or other valuable property
(excluding. ordinary household furnishings and clothing)?
Yes
No
If yes, give value and describe it and say in whose name the property is registered.
Value
Description
has not
$
unk
94 Ford Bronco Project, runsin we
$
unk
2007 Toyota Prius, doesnot runmell wrecked 754ears
mostly parted
$
unk
2003 Chrusler Van, doesn't curlue ", brake
per red
$
Family Status and Dependents:
Marital Status: Single
Married
Widowed
Separated
or Divorced
Total Number of Dependents: O
Are any of your dependents employed? If so, where:
How much do your dependent(s) earn monthly? $
38
Rev. Ed. October 26, 2017
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 2 Filed 03/07/25 Page 4 of 6
List persons you actually support, your relationship to them:
Do you pay alimony or child support or any other court-ordered payments? Yes
No
If yes, list how much and describe:
Monthly Debts of Applicant and/or Dependents
Type of Debt
Name of Creditor
Total Debt
Payment
Medical debts from APD, ,etc.
Several St. Davids
cannot pay
$ 8000
$
Student Loans cannot pay
unk
$ unk
$ 30,000+?
$
$
$
$
Monthly Expenses of Applicant and/or Dependents
Rent or House Payment:
$ 2.99 /mo Storage
Electric & Water Bills:
$ 0
Gas:
$ 100 QPPX.
Phone:
$ 60 appx.
Insurance:
$ 0
For what purpose: Cars not running
39
Rev. Ed. October 26, 2017
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 2 Filed 03/07/25 Page 5 of 6
Prescriptions:
$
For what purpose:
Transportation/Car Payments:
$
For what purpose:
Medical Bills:
$
For what purpose:
Legal Bills:
$
For what purpose:
Loans:
$
For what purpose:
Miscellaneous:
$
For what purpose:
Is there any more information the Court should consider in making its determination?
Long - term chronically unlunderemployed
and homeless Coroner 20yearsintexas
I cannotuffer6 uffer Counsel or Legal
Fees /filing fees at this time.
Thank you
40
Rev. Ed. October 26, 2017
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 2 Filed 03/07/25 Page 6 of 6
AFFIDAVIT OF APPLICANT
I declare under penalty of perjury the above answers and statements to be true and correct to
the best of my knowledge. I understand that this affidavit will become an official part of the United
States District Court files and that any false or dishonest answer or statements knowingly made by
me in this Financial Affidavit are illegal and may subject me to criminal penalties, including any
applicable fines or imprisonment, or both.
Signature: n
Printed Name: Julian Reyes
Prose
Date: 3-7-2025
41
Rev. Ed. October 26, 2017
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 3 Filed 03/07/25 Page 1 of 1
Name: Julian Reyes
Address: 10900 Research Blvd
FILED
ste 160c box 147, Austin, Texas, 78759
Phone Number: (512) 785-1749
2025 MAR PM 4: 58
Email Address: justicenowpeople@protonmail.com
CLERK, US DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Pro Se
BY
sue
REPUTY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Julian Reyes, pro se
CASE NUMBER
1:25 CV00347 ADA
PLAINTIFF(S)
V.
CITY OF AUSTIN, INC., AUSTIN POLICE
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
DEPARTMENT, OFFICERS SPEES, PITRE,
TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY
PIORONNE ET AL.
DEFENDANT(S)
As the
X
Plaintiff
Defendant in the above-captioned matter, I respectfully ask the Court for
permission to participate in electronic filing ("e-filing") in this case. I hereby affirm that:
1. I have reviewed the Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing in Civil and Criminal Cases
and the Local Court Rules available on the Court's website at www.txwd.uscourts.gov.
2. I understand that once I register for e-filing, I will receive notices and documents in this instant case
only by e-mail and not by U.S. mail.
3. I understand that if my use of the Court's e-filing system is unsatisfactory, my e-filing privileges may be
revoked and I will be required to file documents in paper, but will continue to receive documents via e-mail.
4. I understand that I may not e-file on behalf of any other person in this case.
5. I have regular access to the technical requirements necessary to e-file successfully:
Check all that apply.
.
A Computer with internet access.
-
An email account on a daily basis to receive notifications from the Court and notices from the
e-filing system.
-
A scanner to convert documents that are only in paper format into electronic files.
A printer or copier to create required paper copies such as chambers copies.
-
A word-processing program to create documents; and
-
A PDF reader and a PDF writer to convert word processing documents into PDF format, the only
electronic format in which documents can be e-filed.
Date: 03/07/2025
Signature: Culun Ruys Pro se
Created 04/20
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 4 Filed 03/07/25 Page 1 of 2
FILED
February 27, 2025
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BY:
Alicia Davis
AUSTIN DIVISION
DEPUTY
§
IN RE: COURT DOCKET
§
MANAGEMENT
§
§
§
FOR AUSTIN DIVISION
§
§
MAGISTRATE REFERRAL ORDER
Under Rule 1 of the Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate
Judges, Appendix C of the Local Court Rules of the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall refer all civil
matters assigned to the Honorable Alan D Albright to a United States Magistrate Judge for the
Austin Division, allocated pursuant to the Clerk of the Court's standard procedure, except the
following:
Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2254, and 2255;
Cases brought by detainees and prisoners under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 430 U.S. 388 (1971);
Cases brought under 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (patent cases);
Cases designated as "830 Patent" and "835 Patent (ANDA)"; and
Cases that include ex parte applications for temporary restraining orders.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall refer all criminal matters
for the Austin Division assigned to the Honorable Alan D Albright to a United States Magistrate
Judge for the Austin Division, allocated pursuant to the Clerk of the Court's standard procedure.
The matters are referred for disposition of all non-dispositive pretrial matters as provided in 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and for findings and recommendations on all case-dispositive motions as
provided in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 4 Filed 03/07/25 Page 2 of 2
SIGNED this 27th day of February, 2025.
UNITED ALAND Olan STATES ALBRIGHT DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 5 Filed 04/03/25 Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
JULIAN REYES,
§
Plaintiff
§
§
v.
§
No. 1:25-CV-00347-ADA
§
CITY OF AUSTIN, et al.,
§
Defendants
§
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TO: THE HONORABLE ALAN D. ALBRIGHT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The undersigned submits this report and recommendation to the United States
District Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 1 of Appendix C of the Local
Court Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas,
Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Julian Reyes's Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis. Dkt. 2. Because Reyes is requesting permission to proceed in forma
pauperis, the undersigned must review and make a recommendation on the merits of
his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
I.
REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
The Court has reviewed Reyes's financial affidavit and determined Reyes is
indigent and should be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the
Court hereby GRANTS Reyes's request for in forma pauperis status, Dkt. 2. The
Clerk of the Court shall file the complaint without payment of fees or costs or giving
1
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 5 Filed 04/03/25 Page 2 of 6
security therefor pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). This indigent status is granted
subject to a later determination that the action should be dismissed if the allegation
of poverty is untrue or the action is found frivolous or malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e). Reyes is further advised that, although he has been granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, a court may, in its discretion, impose costs of court at the
conclusion of this lawsuit, as in other cases. Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 621
(5th Cir. 1994).
II.
REVIEW OF THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM
Because Reyes has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the
undersigned is required by statute to review the Complaint. Section 1915(e)(2)
provides in relevant part that "the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state
a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is
frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). A
claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is "based on an indisputably meritless
legal theory." Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
Pro se complaints are liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). However, pro se status does not offer a plaintiff
an "impenetrable shield, for one acting pro se has no license to harass others, clog the
2
Case
1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
Document 5
Filed 04/03/25
Page 3 of 6
judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse already overloaded court
dockets." Farguson v. MBank Houston N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986).
Reyes initiated this lawsuit pursuant to sections 1983 and 1985 based on
alleged violations of his First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Dkt. 1, at 2. In his complaint, Reyes alleges that at least three Austin Police
Department ("APD") officers, sued in their individual and official capacities, violated
Reyes's constitutional rights by arresting him after he complied with an APD request
"to stop playing music and speaking" on a public street. Id. at 3-4. Reyes's criminal
case was dismissed, but he maintains that the APD officers "conspired and perjured
to falsely arrest a compliant person exercising his God-given rights to Rock in
Austin!" Id. at 5. Based on these allegations, Reyes seeks $500,000 in damages, as
well as "injunctions to protect Citizens' rights" and "reformative justice, remedy, and
mediation on the issues of training, injustice, patterns and practice of police abuses[.]"
Id. at 9.
Initially, Reyes's claims against APD and official-capacity claims against the
named APD officers, construed as claims against the City of Austin, should be
dismissed for failure to state a claim. See Neal v. Flanery, No. A-20-CV-1217-RP, 2021
WL 164555, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 19, 2021) ("The Austin Police Department is not a
legal entity capable of being sued."); Bustillos v. El Paso Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 226 F.
Supp. 3d 778, 789 (W.D. Tex. 2016), aff'd, 891 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2018) ("A claim
against a municipal official in his or her official capacity is tantamount to a suit
against the municipal entity."). To state a claim against a municipality under section
3
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 5 Filed 04/03/25 Page 4 of 6
1983, a plaintiff must allege a constitutional violation resulting from a municipal
custom or policy. Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-94 (1978). Apart
from several passing references to an "ongoing pattern and practice of bias and
targeting against people of color and the indigenous, like myself," Reyes does not
identify with "similarity and specificity" any prior incidents demonstrating a pattern
or practice of discrimination as alleged in his complaint. See Dkt. 1, at 8-11; see also
Peterson v. City of Fort Worth, Tex., 588 F.3d 838, 851 (5th Cir. 2009) ("A pattern
requires similarity and specificity; '[p]rior indications cannot simply be for any and
all 'bad' or unwise acts, but rather must point to the specific violation in question."
(quoting Estate of Davis ex rel. McCully v. City of North Richland Hills, 406 F.3d 375,
383 (5th Cir. 2005))). Accordingly, Reyes's claims against the APD and two of its
officers in their official capacity-construed as claims against the City of Austin-
should be dismissed.¹
As to Reyes's individual-capacity claims against the APD officers, the
undersigned finds that Reyes sufficiently stated at least one non-frivolous claim for
retaliatory arrest in violation of the First Amendment. To state a claim for retaliatory
arrest, a plaintiff must plead that: (1) he was engaged in constitutionally protected
activity, (2) defendants caused him to suffer an injury that would chill a person of
ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that activity; and (3) defendants'
adverse actions were substantially motivated by the plaintiff's exercise of
1 Any conspiracy claims against the City of Austin brought under section 1985 should also be
dismissed since "municipalities cannot be liable in actions brought pursuant to Section 1985."
Batiste v. City of Beaumont, 421 F. Supp. 2d 969, 986 (E.D. Tex. 2005).
4
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 5 Filed 04/03/25 Page 5 of 6
constitutionally protected conduct. Grisham v. Valenciano, 93 F.4th 903, 909 (5th Cir.
2024) (citing Keenan v. Tejeda, 290 F.3d 252, 258 (5th Cir. 2002)). Here, Reyes alleges
that he was arrested while engaging in a constitutionally protected activity by
"speaking to people around the City of Austin's downtown area and other areas
through [his] music and voice," that his arrest and the confiscation of his music
equipment injured Reyes by "silenc[ing] and chill[ing] our filming, music, and
freedoms of speech," and that the officers targeted Reyes for arrest "in retaliation for
[his] musical expression." Dkt. 1, at 3-4, 8. Because Reyes has stated at least one non-
frivolous claim against the individual defendants, the undersigned determines that
Reyes's claims against the individual defendants should not be dismissed at this time.
III.
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned hereby GRANTS Reyes's Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis. Dkt. 2, and ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to issue summons and the
United States Marshal to commence service of process, including service of Reyes's
complaint upon the individual defendants² under Rules 4 and 5 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. The undersigned RECOMMENDS the District Judge DISMISS
with prejudice Reyes's causes of action against the Austin Police Department, City of
Austin, and individual defendants sued in their official capacities pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
2 Reyes identifies the individual defendants as APD Officers Spees, Pitre, and Pioronne, Dkt.
1, at 1.
5
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 5 Filed 04/03/25 Page 6 of 6
IV. WARNINGS
The parties may file objections to this report and recommendation. A party
filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to
which objections are being made. The District Judge need not consider frivolous,
conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. United States Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d
419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed
findings and recommendations contained in this report within fourteen days after the
party is served with a copy of the report shall bar that party from de novo review by
the District Judge of the proposed findings and recommendations in the report and,
except upon grounds of plain error, shall bar the party from appellate review of
unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District
Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985);
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
SIGNED April 3, 2025.
DR
DUSTIN M. HOWELL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
U.S. Postal Service™
0034
CERTIFIED 04/07/25
Domestic Mail Only
For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com®.
OFFICIAL USE
9589 0710 5270 2121 5126
Certified Mail Fee
$
Julian Reyes
10900 Research Blvd Ste 160C, Box 147
Austin, TX 78759
Sent To
Street and Apt. No., or PO Box No.
City, State, ZIP+4
PS Form 3800, January 2023 PSN 7530-02-000-9047 See Reverse for Instructions
Certified Mail service provides the following benefits:
receipt (this pertion of the Certified Docum
for an electronic return receipt see a retail
unique identifier for your mailpiece.
associate for assistan preccive a 07/25
Electronic verification of delivery or attempted
return receipt for no additional fee, present this
delivery.
USPS®-postmarked Certified Mail receipt to the
retail associate.
A record of delivery (including the recipient's
signature) that is retained by the Postal Service™
- Restricted delivery service, which provides
for a specified period.
delivery to the addressee specified by name, or
to the addressee's authorized agent.
Important Reminders:
- Adult signature service, which requires the
You may purchase Certified Mail service with
signee to be at least 21 years of age (not
First-Class Mail, First-Class Package Service,
available at retail).
or Priority Mail® service.
- Adult signature restricted delivery service, which
Certified Mail service is not available for
requires the signee to be at least 21 years of age
international mail.
and provides delivery to the addressee specified
Insurance coverage is not available for purchase
by name, or to the addressee's authorized agent
with Certified Mail service. However, the purchase
(not available at retail).
of Certified Mail service does not change the
To ensure that your Certified Mail receipt is
insurance coverage automatically included with
accepted as legal proof of mailing, it should bear a
certain Priority Mail items.
USPS postmark. If you would like a postmark on
For an additional fee, and with a proper
this Certified Mail receipt, please present your
endorsement on the mailpiece, you may request
Certified Mail item at a Post Office™ for
the following services:
postmarking. If you don't need a postmark on this
- Return receipt service, which provides a record
Certified Mail receipt, detach the barcoded portion
of delivery (including the recipient's signature).
of this label, affix it to the mailpiece, apply
You can request a hardcopy return receipt or an
appropriate postage, and deposit the mailpiece.
electronic version. For a hardcopy return receipt,
complete PS Form 3811, Domestic Return
Receipt; attach PS Form 3811 to your mailpiece;
IMPORTANT: Save this receipt for your records.
PS Form 3800, January 2023 (Reverse) PSN 7530-02-000-9047
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
Document 7
Filed 05/13/25
Page 1 of 1
DISTRIBUTA
CT COURT
WESTERNING DISTRICT OF TEXES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
PHILIP J. DEVLIN
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ANNETTE FRENCH
CLERK OF COURT
501 West Fifth Street, Suite 1100
CHIEF DEPUTY
Austin, Texas 78701
May 13, 2025
Julian Reyes
10900 Research Blvd Ste 160C, Box 147
Austin, TX 78759
RE:
Reyes V. City of Austin, Inc. et al
1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
To whom it may concern,
The court has granted your motion for permission to file electronically. If you have not already
set up your filing permissions, please submit a Support Desk Ticket on our website:
www.TXWD.USCourts.gov
Once on the website, select the CM/ECF option on the blue bar at the top (third option from the
right). On the CM/ECF page, under the General section (first paragraph in the left column) please
click on the blue hyperlink for the Support Desk:
General
Please note that you may e-file at any time, but CM/ECF support (ECF Support
Desk) is only offered Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. CST,
excluding court holidays. No after hours support is available. When relevant,
please include the Case Number and the Judge's initials in the Subject:
line of all e-mails to the court.
The link will open an email window. Please complete the email in order to submit the ticket
requesting assistance with filing permissions. Be sure to include your name and case number.
The ticket will be assigned and a representative from the help desk will contact you directly. Please
note: the district clerk's office does not have the ability to set up electronic filing for you. It must
be processed through the Support Desk.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely
pepelu
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 8 Filed 07/09/25 Page 1 of 2
U.S. Department of Justice
PROCESS RECEIPT AND RETURN
United States Marshals Service
See "Instructions for Service of Process by U.S. Marshal"
PLAINTIFF
COURT CASE NUMBER
JULIAN REYES
1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
DEFENDANT
TYPE OF PROCESS
City of Austin, Inc. et al.
CIVIL COMPLAINT
NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY, CORPORATION, ETC. TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO SEIZE OR CONDEMN
SERVE
AT
M
APD Officer Pitre
715 E. 8th Street, Austin, Texas 78701
SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO REQUESTER AT NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW
Number of process to be
served with this Form 285
1
Number of parties to be
served in this case
3
Check for service
on U.S.A.
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE (Include Business and Alternate Addresses
All Telephone Numbers, and Estimated Times Available for Service):
sr
2025 JUL -9 AM 10: AM
FILED
TELEPHONE NUMBER
DATE
Signature paper of Attorney other aginator requesting service on behalf of:
X
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
512-391-8707
06/16/2025
SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF U.S. MARSHAL ONLY - DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
I acknowledge receipt for the total
Total Process
District of
District to
Signature of Authorized USMS Deputy or Clerk
Date
number of process indicated.
Origin
Serve
(Sign only for USM 285 if more
/
No. 80
No. 80
than one USM 285 is submitted)
Cli Bels
6/23/25
I hereby certify and return that I
have personally served,
X
have legal evidence of service,
have executed as shown in "Remarks", the process described on the
individual, company, corporation, etc., at the address shown above on the on the individual, company, corporation, etc. shown at the address inserted below.
I hereby certify and return that I am unable to locate the individual, company, corporation, etc. named above (See remarks below)
Name and title of individual served (if not shown above)
Date
Time
X
am
6/26/25
10:02
pm
Address (complete only different than shown above)
Signature of U.S. Marshal or Deputy
Ch.Belly
Costs shown on attached USMS Cost Sheet
REMARKS
USPS CMRR: 9589 0710 5270 2145 6218 57
NOISIAIO AUSTIN
WESTERN DISTRICT/TEXAS
2025 JUN 23 AM 9:20
U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE
RECEIVED
Form USM-285
Rev. 03/21
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 8 Filed 07/09/25 Page 2 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
APD officer Pitre
was received by me on (date) 6/23/25
.
I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)
on (date)
; or
I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date)
, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
I served the summons on (name of individual)
, who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)
; or
I returned the summons unexecuted because
; or
x
Other (specify):
USPS CMRR: 9589 0710 5270 2145 6218 57
My fees are $
for travel and $
for services, for a total of $
0.00
.
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date: 6/26/25
Ch.Bells
Server's signature
Chris Bellamy
Printed name and title
501 W sthst, Austin TX, 76701
Server's address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 9 Filed 07/09/25 Page 1 of 2
U.S. Department of Justice
PROCESS RECEIPT AND RETURN
United States Marshals Service
See "Instructions for Service of Process by U.S. Marshal"
PLAINTIFF
COURT CASE NUMBER
JULIAN REYES
1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
DEFENDANT
TYPE OF PROCESS
CIVIL COMPLAINT
City of Austin, Inc. et al.
NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY, CORPORATION, ETC. TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO SEIZE OR CONDEMN
SERVE
AT
~~
APD Officer Spees
715 E. 8th Street, Austin, Texas 78701
SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO REQUESTER AT NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW
Number of process to be
served with this Form 285
1
Number of parties to be
served in this case
3
Check for service
on U.S.A.
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE (Include Business and Alternate Addresses,
All Telephone Numbers, and Estimated Times Available for Service):
ye
2025 JUL -9 AM 10:
FILED
TELEPHONE NUMBER
DATE
Signature paper of Attorney other nginator requesting service on behalf of:
X
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
512-391-8707
06/16/2025
SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF U.S. MARSHAL ONLY - DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
I acknowledge receipt for the total
Total Process
District of
District to
Signature of Authorized USMS Deputy or Clerk
Date
number of process indicated.
Origin
Serve
(Sign only for USM 285 if more
/
No. 80
No. 80
than one USM 285 is submitted)
U. Belly
6/23/25
I hereby certify and return that I
have personally served,
X
have legal evidence of service,
have executed as shown in "Remarks", the process described on the
individual, company, corporation, etc., at the address shown above on the on the individual, company, corporation, etc. shown at the address inserted below.
I hereby certify and return that I am unable to locate the individual, company, corporation, etc. named above (See remarks below)
Name and title of individual served (if not shown above)
Date
Time
X
am
6/30/25
10:12
pm
Address (complete only different than shown above)
Signature of U.S. Marshal or Deputy
Ch. Bells
Costs shown on attached USMS Cost Sheet
REMARKS
USRS CMRR: 9589 0710 5270 2175 6218 40
AUSTIN DIVISION
WESTERN DISTRICT/TEXAS
2025 JUN 23 AM 9:20 AM 9:20
U.S. MARSHALS RECEIVED SERVICE
Form USM-285
Rev. 03/21
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 9 Filed 07/09/25 Page 2 of 2
no 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
APD Officer Spees
was received by me on (date)
6/23/25
.
I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)
on (date)
; or
I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date)
, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
I served the summons on (name of individual)
, who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)
; or
I returned the summons unexecuted because
; or
Other (specify):
USPS CMRR: 9589 0710 5270 2145 6218 40
My fees are $
for travel and $
for services, for a total of $
0.00
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date: 6/30/25
Ch.Bels Server signature
Chris Bellomy
Printed name and title
501 W 5th st, Austin TX 78701
Server's address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
Print
Save As...
Reset
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 10 Filed 07/24/25 Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
JULIAN REYES,
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
V.
§
§
CITY OF AUSTIN, INC, AUSTIN
§
POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICERS
§
SPEES, PITRE, PIORONNE, ET AL,
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-00347
OTHER PARTIES TO BE LISTED
§
ALL DEFENDANTS INDIVIDUALLY
§
AND IN THEIR OFFICIAL
§
CAPACITIES RESPECTIVELY,
§
Defendants.
§
DEFENDANTS OFFICER SPEES AND OFFICER PITRE'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
EXTEND THE RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE AND FILE A RESPONSE OUT
OF TIME
TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:
Defendant Officers Spees and Pitre without waiving any defense or arguments they may
have under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, files this motion for leave to extend
the responsive pleading deadline and to file a response out of time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12; Fed. R. Civ.
P. 6(b).
Defendants respectfully request leave to file their answer or responsive pleading after the
time for filing the answer has expired. Defendant respectfully requests that the deadline to answer
or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Original Complaint be extended to August 13, 2025. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(a). In support thereof, Defendants respectfully show the Court as follows:
1. Plaintiff filed his Original Complaint on March 7, 2025. Doc. 1.
2. Magistrate Howell's issued his report and recommendation on April 3, 2025,
recommending the dismissal co-defendants Austin Police Department, the City of
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
Document 10
Filed 07/24/25
Page 2 of 5
Austin, and officers sued in their official capacity, while allowing the lawsuit against
Officers Spees, Pitre, and Pierron in their individual capacities to proceed. 1 Doc. 5.
3. On Sunday July 20, 2025, Officer Pitre emailed the City of Austin Law Department
that she had just received service of a lawsuit. Officer Pitre discovered the lawsuit
summons in her mailbox at APD headquarters. Officer Pitre had been on medical leave
the entire month of June and has been on light duty during the month of July. Under
the conditions of this leave, she does not go into the office. It was only a coincidence
that she spur of the moment stopped by the office and located the mailing containing
this lawsuit.
4. Officer Spees has also been out on administrative leave since December 2024 and has
not been available to check his mail at APD headquarters or go into the office. He was
unaware of this lawsuit and service until undersigned counsel reached out to him after
receiving the email from Officer Pitre.
5. Officer Pierron² is on military leave until September 30, 2025 and does not have to
ability to check his mailbox at APD headquarters. He was unaware of this lawsuit until
the undersigned counsel reached out to him after receiving the email for Officer Pitre.
It does not appear that Officer Pierron has been served in this lawsuit therefore he is
not requesting an extension.
6. On July 9, 2025 an executed summons return was filed with the Court showing that
Officer Pitre was served via certified mail by dropping off the mailing at the reception
1
Judge Howell also finds that the lawsuit against Officer Pioronne may proceed, however it does
not appear that Officer Pioronne has been successfully served yet and no return of service has
been filed.
2 The correct spelling for this officer's name is Pierron. This motion will use the correct spelling.
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
Document 10
Filed 07/24/25
Page 3 of 5
area or the front desk of the Austin Police Department on June 26, 2025, making the
answer due July 17, 2025. Doc. 8.
7. On July 10, 2025 an executed summons return was filed with the Court showing that
Officer Spees was served via certified mail by dropping off the mailing at the reception
area or the front desk of the Austin Police Department on June 30, 2025, making the
answer due July 21, 2025. Doc. 9
8. While service was effectuated on the Austin Police Department reception area or front
desk, due to both officers being on leave, neither received actual notice that they had
been served with a lawsuit. The mailing containing the lawsuit was placed in the
officers' respective boxes unopened.
9. Given the timing of the receipt of the lawsuit, the undersigned counsel requires
additional time to evaluate the Plaintiff's pleadings, the appropriate response, and the
availability of any potential motions.
10. This extension is not sought for mere purposes of delay but that the interests of justice
may be served. Plaintiff will not be prejudiced if leave is granted to late file an answer.
This is especially true given there is not yet a final order on the Report and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and other defendants have not
yet been served.
PRAYER
Accordingly, Defendants Pitre and Spees respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion for
leave to file a response out of time and extend the deadline for Defendant to answer or otherwise
respond to Plaintiff's Original Complaint to August 13, 2025. A proposed form of order is being
submitted in connection with this motion.
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 10 Filed 07/24/25 Page 4 of 5
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DEBORAH THOMAS, CITY ATTORNEY
SARA SCHAEFER, ACTING DIVISION CHIEF
/s/
Sara Schaefer
SARA SCHAEFER
State Bar No. 24086598
City of Austin
P.O. Box 1546
Austin, Texas 78767-1546
sara.shaefer@austintexas.gov
Telephone (512) 974-1536
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
CITY OF AUSTIN
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
Document 10
Filed 07/24/25
Page 5 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I certify that on July 24, 2025, I emailed Julian Reyes (pros se plaintiff) at the email
address on his original complaint. As of filing, I have not received a response, so I am
designating this request as opposed.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing on all parties or their attorneys
of record, in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this 24th day of July 2025.
Via CM/ECF:
Julian Reyes
10900 Research Blvd
Suite 160c Box 147
Austin, teas 78759
justicenowpeople@protonmail.com
(512) 785-1749
PLAINTIFF PRO SE
/s/ Sara Schaefer
SARA SCHAEFER
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 11 Filed 07/22/25 Page 1 of 4
U.S. Department of Justice
PROCESS RECEIPT AND RETURN
United States Marshals Service
See "Instructions for Service of Process by U.S. Marshal"
PLAINTIFF
COURT CASE NUMBER
JULIAN REYES
1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
DEFENDANT
TYPE OF PROCESS
CIVIL COMPLAINT
City of Austin, Inc. et al.
NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY, CORPORATION, ETC. TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO SEIZE OR CONDEMN
SERVE
~~
APD Officer Pioronne
AT
715 E. 8th Street, Austin, Texas 78701
of
SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO REQUESTER AT NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW
Number of process to
served with this Form
Number of parties to be
served in this case
Check for service
STRICT
2025 JUL 22 PM
FILED
on U.S.A.
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE (Include Business and Alternate
All Telephone Numbers, and Estimated Times Available for Service):
TELEPHONE NUMBER
DATE
Signature paper of Attorney other iginator requesting service on behalf of:
X
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
512-391-8707
06/16/2025
SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF U.S. MARSHAL ONLY - DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
I acknowledge receipt for the total
Total Process
District of
District to
Signature of Authorized USMS Deputy or Clerk
Date
number of process indicated
Origin
Serve
(Sign only for USM 285 if more
1
No. 30
No. 80
than one USM 285 is submitted)
Ch.Bey
6/23/25
I hereby certify and return that I
have personally served,
have legal evidence of service,
have executed as shown in "Remarks", the process described on the
individual, company, corporation, etc., at the address shown above on the on the individual, company, corporation, etc. shown at the address inserted below.
X
I hereby certify and return that I am unable to locate the individual, company, corporation, etc. named above (See remarks below)
Name and title of individual served (if not shown above)
Date
Time
am
pm
Address (complete only different than shown above)
Signature of U.S. Marshal or Deputy
Costs shown on attached USMS Cost Sheet
REMARKS
- USPS CMRR: 9589 0710 5270 2145 6218 64
- No access to delivery location
AUSTIN DIVISION
WESTERN DISTRICT/TEXAS
2025 JUN 23 AM 9:20
U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE
RECEIVED
Form USM-285
Rev. 03/21
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 11 Filed 07/22/25 Page 2 of 4
.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) APD Officer Pioronne
was received by me on (date) 6/23/25
.
I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)
on (date)
; or
I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date)
, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
I served the summons on (name of individual)
, who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)
; or
X
I returned the summons unexecuted because No access to delivery location
; or
Other (specify):
My fees are $
for travel and $
for services, for a total of $
0.00
.
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date: 7/13/25
Ch.Bels
Server's signature
Chris Bellomy
Printed name and title
501 w 5th st, Austin TX 78701
Server's address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
7/22/25, 2:23 PM Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document USPS Filed 07/22/25 Page 3 of 4
USPS Tracking ®
FAQs >
Remove X
Tracking Number:
9589071052702145621864
Copy
Add to Informed Delivery (https://informeddelivery.usps.com/)
Latest Update
We could not access the delivery location to deliver your package at 6:24 pm on July 13, 2025 in AUSTIN,
TX 78704. We will redeliver on the next delivery day. No action needed.
Get More Out of USPS Tracking:
USPS Tracking Plus®
Alert
Feedback
No Access to Delivery Location
AUSTIN, TX 78704
July 13, 2025, 6:24 pm
Arrived at Post Office
AUSTIN, TX 78701
July 12, 2025, 5:25 pm
See All Tracking History
What Do USPS Tracking Statuses Mean? (https://faq.usps.com/s/article/Where-is-my-package)
Text & Email Updates
USPS Tracking Plus®
>
Product Information
>
https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction?qtc_tLabels1=9589071052702145621864
1/2
ENDER
U.S. Postal Service™
DN DELIVERY
ent 11 Filed 07/22/25 Page 4 of 4
Compl
CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT
Print y
Domestic Mail Only
so that
For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com
30
Agent
Addressee
Attach
or on 1
Article
13 9589 9589 0710 5270 2145 6218 64
OFFICIAL USE
)
C. Date of Delivery
Certified Mail Fee
$
from item 1?
Yes
AP[
Extra Servi
ess below:
No
Return R
APD OFFICER PIORONNE
Return R
715
Certified
Adult Sig
715 E. 8TH STREET
Adult Sig
AUS
Postage
$
AUSTIN, TX 78701
Total Posta
Priority Mail Express
$
Registered Mail™
Sent To
Registered Mall Restricted
Delivery
9
Street and Apt. No., or PO Box No.
Signature Confirmation™
Signature Confirmation
Article
City, State, ZIP+4
very
Restricted Delivery
PS Form 3800, January 2023 PSN 7530-02-000-9047 See Reverse for Instructions
S Form 3811, July 2020 PSN 7530-02-000-9053
Domestic Return Receipt
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 12 Filed 08/13/25 Page 1 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
JULIAN REYES,
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
V.
§
§
CITY OF AUSTIN, INC, AUSTIN
§
POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICERS
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-00347
SPEES, PITRE, PIORONNE, ET AL,
§
OTHER PARTIES TO BE LISTED
§
ALL DEFENDANTS INDIVIDUALLY
§
AND IN THEIR OFFICIAL
§
CAPACITIES RESPECTIVELY,
§
Defendants.
§
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES BY
CERTAIN NAMED DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:
Defendants City of Austin ("the City"), Austin Police Department, Officer Spees, and
Officer Pitre file this Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Original Complaint [Dkt 1].
As for Officer Pioronne -- the correct spelling for this officer's name is Pierron -- Officer Pierron
is on military leave. It does not appear that Officer Pierron has been successfully served yet as
no return of service has been filed.
Pursuant to Rules 8 and 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Defendants
respectfully show the Court the following:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND DENIAL OF ALL CLAIMS REGARDING
THE CITY OF AUSTIN, AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS SUED IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 12 Filed 08/13/25 Page 2 of 6
Out of an abundance of caution, the following Defendants generally deny each and every
allegation asserted against City of Austin ("the City"), the Austin Police Department, and
individual defendants sued in their official capacities and respectfully submit that any and all
such claims should be dismissed with prejudice for the reasons stated in the ORDER AND
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
[Dkt 5], which is fully adopted and incorporated herein by reference. p.3-5 ("Initially, Reyes's
claims against APD and official-capacity claims against the named APD officers, construed as
claims against the City of Austin, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. See Neal v.
Flanery, No. A-20-CV-1217-RP, 2021 WL 164555, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 19, 2021) ("The Austin
Police Department is not a legal entity capable of being sued."); Bustillos v. El Paso Cnty. Hosp.
Dist., 226 F. Supp. 3d 778, 789 (W.D. Tex. 2016), aff'd, 891 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2018) ("A claim
against a municipal official in his or her official capacity is tantamount to a suit against the
municipal entity.").
ORIGINAL ANSWER
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b), the above referenced Defendants
respond to each of the specific averments in Plaintiff's Civil Rights Complaint [Dkt 1] as set
forth below. To the extent that the Defendants do not address a specific averment made by
Plaintiff, the Defendants expressly deny that averment.¹
1.
Upon information and belief, Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 1
of the Original Complaint.
2.
Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Original Complaint. The
allegations of this paragraph state conclusions of law or fact without stating a claim upon which
1
Paragraph numbers in Defendant's Answer correspond to the paragraphs in Plaintiffs' Original Complaint.
Page 2 of 6
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
Document 12
Filed 08/13/25
Page 3 of 6
relief can be granted, and for which no response is required as stated. To the extent any response
is required, the Defendants deny any allegations asserting fault or liability.
3.
Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Original Complaint.
4.
Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Original Complaint
including all subparts thereof.
5.
Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Original Complaint
including all subparts thereof.
Jury Demand
Defendants acknowledge and do not oppose Plaintiff's request for a jury.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1.
Defendants assert the affirmative defense of qualified/official immunity for actions taken
in the course and scope of their employment.
2.
Defendants assert the affirmative defense of contributory negligence. Plaintiff's claims
are barred in whole or in part by Plaintiff's contributory negligence. Plaintiff, by his
actions, failed to exercise ordinary care for his safety. His actions contributed at least
fifty-one percent to his alleged injuries and the damages asserted in this case.
3.
Defendants affirmatively plead that the Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part
since Plaintiff's intentional acts were the proximate cause, or a proximate contributing
cause, of his alleged injuries and damages asserted in this case.
4.
Defendants assert the affirmative defense that Plaintiff failed to mitigate damages, if any,
and asserts this failure to mitigate as both an affirmative defense and as a reduction in the
damage amount, if any, due Plaintiff.
Page 3 of 6
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 12 Filed 08/13/25 Page 4 of 6
5.
Defendants affirmatively plead that the Plaintiff's action is barred by the applicable
statute of limitations.
6.
Defendants affirmatively plead insufficient service of process.
7.
Defendant City of Austin asserts the affirmative defense of governmental immunity as a
municipal corporation entitled to immunity while acting in the performance of its
governmental functions, absent express waiver.
8.
Defendant City of Austin asserts the affirmative defense of governmental immunity
since its employees are entitled to qualified/official immunity for actions taken in the
course and scope of their employment, absent express waiver.
9.
Defendants reserve the right to assert additional affirmative defenses throughout the
development of the case.
10.
Defendants deny any deprivation under color of statute, ordinance, custom, or abuses of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured to the Plaintiff by the United States
Constitution, or any applicable federal or state law, including but not limited to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, et seq, 1985 (Conspiracy of Parties), Privacy Protection Act of 1980, etc.
11.
To the extent Defendants did not address a specific averment made by Plaintiff,
Defendants expressly deny all such averments.
12.
Defendants reserve the right to assert additional affirmative defenses as may be
applicable throughout the development of the case, including immunity, estoppel,
illegality, laches, waiver, or any other matter which may constitute an avoidance or
affirmative defense.
13.
Defendants plead legal justification for each and every action taken.
14.
Defendants assert that punitive damages are not available and would be contrary to the
Page 4 of 6
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 12 Filed 08/13/25 Page 5 of 6
protections of the United States Constitution by allowing a jury or fact finder standardless
discretion.
15.
Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against these defendants and the lawsuit
should be dismissed against them, individually.
16.
If appropriate, and subject to withdrawal, Defendant[s] assert that Plaintiff's claim should
be dismissed, with all attorney's fees, other expenses and costs of this action taxed
against Plaintiff. Plaintiff's claims are without substantial justification, frivolous,
groundless in fact and law, meritless, unnecessary, and vexatious.
DEFENDANTS' PRAYER
Defendants pray that all relief requested by Plaintiff be denied, that the Court dismiss this
case with prejudice, and that the Court award Defendants costs and attorney's fees, and any
additional relief to which they are entitled under law or equity.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DEBORAH THOMAS, CITY ATTORNEY
SARA SCHAEFER, ACTING LITIGATION CHIEF
/s/ Monte L. Barton Jr.
MONTE L. BARTON JR.
State Bar No. 24115616
monte.barton@austintexas.gov
Assistant City Attorney
City of Austin
P.O. Box 1546
Austin, Texas 78767-1546
Telephone (512) 974-2409
Facsimile (512) 974-1311
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
Page 5 of 6
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 12 Filed 08/13/25 Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the 13th day of August 2025, I served a copy of the foregoing Answer and
Affirmative Defenses on all parties in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Via CM/ECF:
Mr. Julian Reyes
10900 Research Blvd
Suite 160c Box 147
Austin, teas 78759
justicenowpeople@protonmail.com
(512) 785-1749
PLAINTIFF PRO SE
/s/ Monte L. Barton Jr.
Monte L. Barton Jr.
Page 6 of 6
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 13 Filed 08/29/25 Page 1 of 14
FILED
UNITED STATES of AMERICA 5TH CIRCUIT AUSTIN DIVISION AUG COURT
Julian Reyes
CLERK. WS DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Plaintiff
BY
SE
§
V.
§
Case no. 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
§
CITY OF AUSTIN, INC,
§
AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT,
§
OFFICERS SPEES, PITRE,
PIORONNE, ET AL, OTHER
§
PARTIES TO BE LISTED
ALL DEFENDANTS
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR
OFFICIAL CAPACITIES,
RESPECTIVELY
Defendants
Motion for Leave to file motions amend complaint and seek Counsel
1. As I do not currently have access to a lawyer on this case or to case law. And
am a laymen without legal training and access to legal staff like the City of Austin,
Inc. have access to. The City being the employer of the officers that deprived me
of my Constitutional Rights on this date.
As such I would like to request a motion to stay or leave, whichever is
technically appropriate in this court, for this case, and on any responses to this
court on this case for at least 60 days while I seek legal attention on these
matters, and before the defendants and court are able to further deprive me of
access to my rights and law.
2. I apologize, after looking through the original complaint, I need to correct these
errors, and file a new amended complaint as this case is difficult for me to work
and understand all the case law and how the City and Polices' qualified immunity
works. And if it is qualified that they are not perjuring themselves to fabricate
Motion for Leave to file
1
Reyes V Spees, et al. 8-29-2025
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
Document 13
Filed
08/29/25
Page 2 of 14
probable cause for the arrest, like they did in this incident as well as others I have
witnessed. So I would like to correct my original complaint as it was filed at the
last minute, with errors. And there are corrections and specifications that need to
be amended to the complaint. Which I am not sure how that process works having
the City attorneys already try to dismiss this case without due process in their
answer recently. If I had legal counsel they would know the law and process of the
Court and all the right legal terms. Which is why I am asking for leave also.
I also apologize if I have filed this motion under the wrong title or category on
CM/ECF e-file system. I was confused when I looked at all the categories there
also.
3. I am a simple pro se Citizen that has been repeatedly, frequently abused,
arrested for filming police, targeted as Press during my Press work, which is an
abuse of law, for my constitutional exercises of filming the Austin police,
and city crews, which is free speech as well as freedom of the press as I am a long-
standing (over 12 years), credentialed member of the Challenger Street Newspaper,
a 501c3 nonprofit and the City's agents are well aware of this fact, as well as the
Mayor and City Council and officers listed in this suit as we have regular
interactions and they see me with my Press badge filming their public interactions
with Citizens. They are both aware of my journalist status and of the status of
the Challenger Street Newspaper, the local street press. Print and online
distribution and sales. Including being distributed by street vendors that are
resident unhoused People of Austin. With local, State, National and International
subscribers, viewers and news reach.
4. As I am operating without counsel and the incidents of false arrest and
deprivation of rights are frequent and often get confused. Others parties to be
named later through the proper discovery of evidence, all all defendants
individually and in their official capacities are responsible for this incident on
this date. And only through proper discovery of evidence will we actually
know the extent of this targeting, incidents, and witnesses. To dismiss and give
immunity at this early stage is an injustice under color of law. It would better
serve the people and serve justice to revisit all qualified immunities issues after
the evidence is presented, to make sure that the truth comes out and the facts,
under the law. Not above the law.
5. This incident and complaint happened in Austin, Texas, which this Court
has jurisdiction over. As the 5th Circuit encompasses all of Texas, Louisiana
and Mississippi. These are Constitutional issues, that are novel and important.
Motion for Leave to file
2
Reyes V Spees. et al. 8-29-2025
Case
1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
Document 13
Filed 08/29/25
Page 3 of 14
Therefore I request the Western District Court of the U.S.A. in Austin, to try
my Civil Complaint involving 1st, 4th, 14th, 8th Constitutional Amendments
both in the State of Texas and similar Constitutional Rights amendments of the
Unites States of America, violations under section U.S.C. 42 1983 as well as
section 1985 Conspiracy of Parties. Because multiple agents of Municipal and
Corporate government did conspire to deprive me of my rights and they were all
involved in this crime against myself and essentially the rights afforded to
all the Citizens and the Free Press.
Making this case difficult and complex, and the evidence and investigation
complex beyond my means to achieve Justice. And that is a furtherance of APD's
ongoing practices racist targeting of persons and and the same targeting of me
repeatedly by the City and it's agents acting together with the desired goals to
deprive me of my rights, falsely arrest me repeatedly, make a mockery of the
Constitution and cause me to not be able to defend my rights in Court. As the City
and it's employees have countless funds and lawyers to protect these unlawful
agents and these actions. The City and police also also know about my indigency,
health issues, and mental strain that they have caused me.
The City and Police know the Challenger Newspaper and I are important source of
Press, news from the streets of Austin, Texas. News that otherwise would not be
spoken. Breaking news.
Many are life or death stories and struggles of real people living in Austin or on the
poor streets of wealthy Austin. People and stories that the City and police would
rather not be heard or seen by the public.
I have spoken to several Chiefs of Police of APD and informed them of
this ongoing issue, of targeting, of interference with 1st amendment constitutional
rights of filming police, of protesting, and that I am in fear for my life and that of
other activists and filmers. Yet the pattern and practice of targeting and false
arrests only continues and escalates.
In fact I have done my duty as a concerned Citizen and have filed many police
complaints regarding this issue, and have not had any justice or change in their
obedience of the law in these regards. Thus showing that the policies and practices
of several departments are being used to enable targeting, false arrest, harassment,
police abuse, and utilizing the law to do so. Under color of law they violate the
constitutions and my rights. As the harassment and targeting, threats and arrests
Motion for Leave to file
3
Reyes V Spees, et al. 8-29-2025
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
Document 13
Filed 08/29/25
Page 4 of 14
continue. Causing an undue burden which interferes with this and other cases that
I have currently and in the past.
I have also spoken many times about this police targeting and abuse to the Office
of Police Oversight, to the entire City Council including 3 Mayors of Austin and
City Managers also of these issues and their responsibility if they did not prevent
further illicit targeting of myself and others. And have informed the Judge on this
case of the perjury in Municipal Court and he stated that perjury would be handled
later for the Officer and the Prosecutor. To date, no accountability has been
achieved related to this unlawful arrest, without probable cause. With malice to
chill my Freedom of Speech and stop the Public from hearing the names of people
in Austin and dogs also murdered by Austin Police Department agents acting under
color of law for the People. As Public Servants.
6. Not to mention Austin Police have harassed and even arrested me again since
this incident many times, and all those cases except the most recent were also
dismissed by the City's Prosecutors at City Legal Dept. I am still facing at least
one case for filming the police on Memorial Day this year. The case in ongoing
and there has not been a single appearance yet for the defendant, just attorney
appearances only. Which is not the subject of this case, just shows what the
difficulty is when you face the corruption of policing and prosecutors that will not
let you be, even while in a current Civil Suit for freedom of speech as well.
These previous criminal case dismissals are because the City Prosecutors and
police lacked prima fascia evidence and the Police lacked probable cause to deny
and deprive me of my Constitutional Rights. Also they realized that the officer
would have to further perjure himself in trial. As I had made the presiding Judge in
that Court also aware of the continued pattern of false arrests, targeting, police
abuse and the fact that the City and Police were involved in a perjury on this case.
Specifically that I had refused to stop playing music and speaking about police
murders on the microphone. Which was a lie, that I informed the police of, on
video, and which all the video evidence showed was also a lie to create a false
arrest. These false arrests and targeting cause me stress, keep me limited on energy
to fight for Justice and chill my freedom of speech including filming the police and
publishing information to the Public regarding this issue. As well as harm my
ability to work these cases like this one, which are above my head.
This has created a chilling effect on free speech and filming in public of police in
Austin and my street advocacy work for the people.
Motion for Leave to file
4
Reyes V Spees, et al. 8-29-2025
Case
1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
Document 13
Filed 08/29/25
Page 5 of 14
7. I request a Leave or Stay for this case, whichever is more suited, because the
City and it's police are continually keeping me busy in court defending my rights
and my person from unlawful and unnecessary retaliatory imprisonment and
punishment for clearly and well established constitutional rights. This time and
energy keeps me from working on this case and talking to more lawyers for
assistance with this case.
I believe that the federal civil courts are the venue for seeking justice and
protections of law for all people in this matter.
I believe that the quality of Justice in general would be improved with leave for
these purposes.
I believe that the functioning of law in the Court will also benefit from having
leave and counsel.
I also believe that the National and State BARs have instructed and informed the
attorneys of the above facts of counsel and courts.
8. I request leniency on this case and a stay/leave order, to allow time to seek
counsel and file motions. please consider this my request if necessary. As I am
just a layman and pro se, without legal counsel trying to do my best to get this
civil rights complaint and motions filed in time and as accurately as I am able. To
defend the people and our Constitution, in effect.
I am not sure what motion to file, leave, stay, or some of the other titles under the
CM/ECF e-file category of motions that seem to apply would be motion for
extension of time to answer, to amend complaint, etc. I am not sure, as I am not an
attorney, I would like the right to speak to an attorney that is familiar with this and
Civil Rights law, etc. to assist with the Justice in this case.
9. See exhibits A and B and you will see that I tried to also file this motion
electronically on this case and could not, as the case number was not yet input into
the system for me to bring up on the page. So that caused delays on this filing and
I eventually got help with the technical support of the Court's e-file system to have
them populate that case into the drop-down where there was no field to manually
enter or search to select this Civil Rights Case in this Austin Federal District Court.
Motion for Leave to file
5
Reyes V Spees, et al. 8-29-2025
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 13 Filed 08/29/25 Page of 14
In exhibit C you can see how I had issues uploading the PDFs due to technical
issues with the e-file system and tried to work the issue out also with technical
support.
So I also request leniency on this filing and this Civil Rights case regarding
answering the City of Austin's attorneys, this stay/leave order, with to allow time to
me to continue to seek adequate counsel and file motions. Please consider my
request.
10. I would also like the opportunity to amend my complaint as there may
have been errors that made a recommendation that was not guided by the
actual facts as they occurred. It's hard to keep up all these cases yet Justice
must be made for all. Not just using "Justice" to protect the police, their leadership
and trainers.
11. If a hearing would be necessary, I pray for that opportunity to show and state
my case as to why I need time for this case and how I cannot keep up with this case
as if I had the abilities and access of legal advice or counsel. Oral Argument
Requested. No rights waived, all rights reserved.
12. The Court granted the City of Austin, Inc. and co-defendants additional time to
answer this complaint.
I am now asking for leave as well. And would like to be also considered for leave
to file motions and seek legal counsel.
I have also informed the City attorneys as best I can and have not received a
response. One was emailed yesterday as well with no response. So I will probably
mark this motion as 'contested' if the electronic filing system requires that
response, only because the emails have not been answered yet by the defendants'
attorneys.
13. Jury Demand
I again pray the Court allow a Trial by Jury on this case, as it progresses, in the
Interest of protecting the Constitutional Rights of the People. Also in the interests
of Justice for All and the interest of Justice as bedrock principles of the United
States of America.
Motion for Leave to file
6
Reyes V Spees, et al. 8-29-2025
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 13 Filed 08/29/25 Page 7 of 14
SIGNED this
29th August, 2025
.
Respectfully submitted,
Balmines
/S/ Julian Reyes
, pro se
Signature (pro se)
Mr. Julian Reyes
512 785-1749
10900 Research Blvd
Suite 160c Box 147
Austin, Texas, U.S.A. 78759
justicenowpeople@protonmail.com
Motion for Leave to file
7
Reyes V Spees, et al. 8-29-2025
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 13 Filed 08/29/25 Page 8 of 14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion has been served on the defendants'
attorneys on 8/29/2025, in accordance with the rules. This was through the CM/ECF e-file
system automatically when uploaded on that page. As I am told.
Julian Reyes, pro se
Culushes
X
/S/ Julian Reyes
. pro se
Motion for Leave to file
8
Reyes V Spees, et al. 8-29-2025
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 13 Filed 08/29/25 Page 9 of 14
EXHIBIT A: Emails from Julian Reyes to the Pacer and CM/ECF Help desk
[2] Can't locate my newest civil rights Case to e-file motions. 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
From a justicenowpecple@protonmail.com
0 10:09 AM
To pacer@psc.uscourts.gov
,
99807.
Hello,
I am trying to file a motion and It is not showing up on CMEFS for the court. only my other cases show up. So that means I'll be late to file my motions potentially and have to hand deliver them to the Federal Court Clerk in
Austin District.
See screen shot. My case that am working on is 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
The one's that show up are "889. *908 and *367 not "347.
Can you help correct this or refer me to the proper help?
Thank you, For the People,
Julian Royes
512 785-1749
justiconowpeople@protonmail.com
813.60 KB file attached
Screenshot 2025-08-29 at 10.04.11AM.png 813.60 KB
From a justicenowpsople@protonmail.com
00 11:42 AM
To txwd_ocf_help@bxwd.uscourts.gov
21007.
---
Hello, am not seeing the case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH in the afile page listing. Please see attached email and screenshot. need to file motions. including leave to file motions and seek counsel. Not sure how many
days have to do so.
Thank you, For the People,
Julian Royes
512 785-1749
Videographer, Reporter, legal documentarist, street advocate, etc.
Challenger Street Newspaper
Alamo Media Group
Stringer for Corporate Media Outlets.
"There is no time but now, there is no one but your and THE 11 mas 11 as, change is curs
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
1.59 MB 2 files attached
1
r
Screenshot 2025-08-29 at... AM.png 813 60 KB
4
Screenshot 2025-08-29 at...AM.png 813 60 KB
Motion for Leave to file - Exhibit A
1
Reyes V Spees, et al. 8-29-2025
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 13 Filed 08/29/25 Page 10 of 14
0
From a exwd_ecf_help@txwd.uscourts.gov
0 11:58 AM
To
justicenowpeople@pratonmail.com
09007
Good morning, Mr. Reyes.
We have property linked your accounts so that case 1:25cv347 shows up on your side. You may have to refresh your session to notice the change.
Let us know if you need anything else.
Thank you,
TXWD ECF Help Dosk
U.S. District Court
Western District of Texas
Support Hours: 8am 5pm CT
Please visit our website: www.brwd.uscourts.gov
Motion for Leave to file - Exhibit A
2
Reyes V Spees, et al. 8-29-2025
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 13 Filed 08/29/25 Page 11 of 14
EXHIBIT B: Sreenshots from CM/ECF of issue with case filing
Firefox
File
Edit
View
History
Bookmarks
Tools
Window
Help
N
a
of
Fri Aug 9:50AM
CAUFFE
X
Count CAMECE LOUINE
x
Texas Western District
X
Centralized CM/ECF X
txwa ourts gov X
770017
X
goverated
X
New Tab
X
+
>
-
X
uscourts
e
»
C Getting Started
The Peace Program
Strings
nedar
- Guilar Tuner
108 APD General Dr
Contact- GDHAM
Office of Police Ove.
2023 General Publ
PIR Portal
DPS ForA
https: //austinfilm se
htlps www facebo
»
Other Bookmarks
CM ECF
Civil -
Criminal -
Query
Reports
Utilities
Seargh
Help
Leg Out
Query
ARNING: Search results from this screen are NOT subject to the 30 page limit
on PACER charges. Please be as specific as possible with your search criteria.
Search Clues
Mobile Query
Case Number
or search by
Case Status:
* Open
Closed
All
Filed Date
to
Last Entry Date
to
423 (Bankruptoy Withdrawl)
430 (Banks and Banking)
Nature Suit
440 (Civil Rights Other)
441 (Civil Rights Voting)
05:0701 (05.0701 Maritime Subsidy Board)
05 0702 (05:702 Administrative Procedure Act)
Cause Action
05 0704 105:704 Labor Litigation)
05:706 (05:0706 Judicial Review of Agency Action)
-
-
#1
Last/Business Name
reyes
Exact matches only
First Name
Julian
Middle Name
Type
Prisoner ID
Run Query
Clear
offered
Firetox
File
Edit
View
History
Bookmarks
Tools
Window
Help
85°F
%
a
/
KS
of
Fri Aug 29 50AM
Cost
X
CM/TCF X
Contralized CMECKS
X
New TAB
X
+
<
-
uscourts
»
a Getting Started
The Peace Program
Strings
tedar
-
Gustar tener
APD General D:
Contact CDHSM
Office Police Ove
2023 General Publ
Portal
DPS Folk
https
https person facebo
»
Other Bookmarks
CM ECF
Civil -
Criminal
Query
Reports
Utilities
Seargh
Help
Log Out
1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Reyes City of Austin, Inc. etal
Alan D Albeight. presiding
Dustin M. Howell, referral
Date filed: 03/07/2025
Date of last filing: 08/13/2025
Mobile Query
Query
Alias
Associated Cases
Attorney
Deadlines/Hearings.
Docket Report
Filers
Party
Attorney Motions Report..
Related Transactions...
View Document
Selection Criteria for Query
Name Criteria julian reyes
Name Matched Julian Reyes
Case Status Open
Nature of Sult Civil Rights: Other
Motion for Leave to file - Exhibit B
1
Reyes V Spees, et al. 8-29-2025
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 13 Filed 08/29/25 Page 12 of 14
Firefox
File
Edit
View
History
Bookmarks
Tools
Window
Help
50°F
M
o
($)
of
09
Fri Aug 10:04AM
X
Centralized CMECK
Centralized
X
M
X
+
a
-
-
uscourts
12.
.
a
»
C Getting Started
The Peace Program
Strings
radar
Guitar tuner
APD General Dr.
Contact CDH&M
Office Palice Ove.
General
Publ.
Portal
DPS FolA
acebo.
Other Bookmarks
CM ECF
Civil -
Criminal -
Query
Reports
Utilities
Search
Help
Leg
Out
Motions
Case Number
1.10-cv-689
Next Clear
1:17-cv-908
1:19-cv-357
Motion for Leave to file Exhibit B
2
Reyes V Spees, et al. 8-29-2025
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
Document 13
Filed 08/29/25
Page 13 of 14
EXHIBIT C: Sreenshots from CM/ECF of issue with PDF filing
CM
ECF
Civil
+
Criminal
.
Query
Reports
Utilities
.
Search
Help
Log
Out
Motions
:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Reyes V.
City of Austin, Inc. et al
CASREF
RROR: Document is malformed or contains code which may cause an external action (such as launching an application). This PDF document cannot be accepted.
lick here for more information.
you need further assistance, please contact the court.
mor File: C:akepathFinal Motion for Leave REYES V SPEES, APD, etc 08292025-2.pdf
ubmitted Entries
File Type
Filename
Category
Description
Main Document C:akepathFinal Motion for Leave REYES V SPEES, APD, etc 08292025-2.pd
Attachment #1
C:akepathExhibit A Motion for Leave REYES V SPEES, APD, etc 08292025-A.pdf Exhibit
Exhibit A to motion
Attachment #2
C:akepathExhibit B Motion for Leave REYES V SPEES, APD, etc 08292025-B.pdf Exhibit
Exhibit B to motion
Back
From: Justice Now People
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 1:34 PM
To: TXWD_ECF_help
Subject: RE: Can't locate my newest civil rights Case to e-file motions. 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
CAUTION EXTERNAL:
Ok well I am downloading adobe acrobat reader now. All have is a mac, which I've been filing from a mac and making pdfs in pages and e-filing them on this server before, without having these errors.
I'll try the adobe work around BS do not see a pdf printer option on pages, just export to pdf.
Thank you. For the People,
Julian Reyes, pro se plaintiff
There is no time but now. there IS no one but you and me. Winds blow change is ours
Sent with Proton Mail secure email
Motion for Leave to file Exhibit B
1
Reyes V Spees, et al. 8-29-2025
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
Document 13
Filed 08/29/25
Page 14 of 14
On Friday, August 29th, 2026 at 1:20 PM, TXWD_ECF_help < helpl@txwd uscourts wrote:
Thank you for your inquiry. We are providing two ways to address the malformed document(s):
The simplest way to address most PDF upload rejections is to flatten the PDF and then upload it. 1. Open your PDF in Adobe Acrobat or another tool that lets you work with PDF documents. 2. Print the PDF file to your
PDF printer (File > Print > select Adobe PDF or another PDF printer listed in the drop-down list). 3. Save the printed PDF and upload it for filing.
If you are using a Mae and printing to pdf, it does not work (on a Mac with Preview). but compressing the file with Adobe did work.
Dr,
You should compress your PDF in Adobe Acrobat and submit your document again by following the steps below:
1. Open your PDF document in Adobe Acrobat
2. Click on File, then Print
3. in the Print pop-up window, select Adobe PDF from the Printer drop-down menu
4. Click on Properties button next to the Printer drop-down menu
5. In the Adobe PDF Document Properties pop-up window. click on the Paper/Quality tab
6. Click on the Advanced button
7. Under Graphic, next to Print Quality, click on 1200 dpi and select 300 dpi from the drop-down menu
8. Click on the OK button twice to return to the Print pop-up window
9. Click on the Print button
10. Type in your file name in and click on the Save button
11. Log in to CM/ECF and file your document
TXWD ECF Help Desk
U.S. District Court
Western District of Texas
Support Hours: 8am 6pm CT
unread conversation
+
Monday Friday (excluding holidays)
Motion for Leave to file Exhibit B
2
Reyes V Spees, et al. 8-29-2025
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 14 Filed 09/03/25 Page 1 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
JULIAN REYES,
Plaintiff,
V.
NO. 1:25-CV-00347-ADA-DH
CITY OF AUSTIN, INC, et al.,
Defendant.
DOCKET CONTROL ORDER PURSUANT TO RULES 16(b) AND 26(f)
Came for consideration the above-styled matter. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
the parties confer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and file with the Court,
on Monday, October 13, 2025, both a joint proposed scheduling and discovery plan
reflecting the Rule 26(f) criteria AND a completed version of the Court's standard
Scheduling Order. 1
During the Rule 26(f) meeting, the parties or their counsel shall discuss the nature
and basis of their claims and defenses, the possibilities for prompt settlement or resolution
of the case, and the scope and type of discovery, including electronic discovery. The parties
shall also arrange for the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) and develop their joint
proposed scheduling/discovery plan. These are the minimum requirements for the meeting.
The parties are encouraged to have a comprehensive discussion and are required to approach
the meeting cooperatively and in good faith. The discussion of claims and defenses shall be
a substantive, meaningful discussion. In addressing settlement or early resolution of the
1 An example Scheduling Order may be found at Appendix A.
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
Document 14
Filed 09/03/25
Page 2 of 7
case, the parties are required to explore the feasibility of ADR between themselves as well.
If the parties elect not to participate in an early ADR effort, the Court may nonetheless
require a settlement conference shortly before trial.
In addressing the Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures, the parties shall discuss the appropriate
timing, form, scope or requirement of the initial disclosures, keeping in mind that
Rule 26(a)(1) contemplates that disclosures will be made by the date of the Rule 16(b) initial
scheduling conference and will include at least the categories of information listed in
the rule. Rule 26 affords the parties flexibility in the scope, form and timing of disclosures
under both Rule 26(a)(1) (initial disclosures) and Rule 26(a)(2) (expert witness disclosures),
but the parties' agreement on disclosures is subject to approval by the undersigned. In their
discussion of disclosures, counsel shall address issues of relevance in detail, with each party
identifying what it needs and why. The discussion shall include the sequence and timing of
follow-up discovery, including whether that discovery should be conducted informally or
formally and whether it should be conducted in phases to prepare for filing of particular
motions or settlement discussions.
In addressing electronic discovery, the parties shall discuss what electronic sources
each party will search, difficulty of retrieval, preservation of records, the form of production
(electronic or hard-copy, format of production, inclusion of meta-data, etc.), cost of
production and which party will bear the cost, privilege/waiver issues, and any other
electronic discovery issues present in the case. Before engaging in the Rule 26 discussion,
the parties should determine who is most familiar with the client's computer system, what
electronic records the client maintains, how the client's electronic records are stored, the
difficulty/ease of retrieving various records, the existence and terms of the client's document
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 14 Filed 09/03/25 Page 3 of 7
retention/destruction policy, and whether the client has placed a "litigation hold" preventing
destruction of potentially relevant records.
The Court would also like to relay the following to the parties:
(1) The Court has recently faced a spate of discovery objections that do not track the 2015
amendments to the Federal Rules. Please remember that boilerplate objections are
unacceptable.
(2) Speaking objections during depositions are improper. Other than to evaluate privilege
issues, counsel should not confer with a witness while a question is pending. Counsel may
confer with witnesses during breaks in a deposition without waiving any otherwise
applicable privilege.
(3) Parties shall promptly notify the Court if they reach a settlement in a case and request to
stay any deadlines.
SIGNED this 3ʳᵈ day of September, 2025.
DR
DUSTIN M. HOWELL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
Document 14
Filed 09/03/25
Page 4 of 7
APPENDIX A
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 14 Filed 09/03/25 Page 5 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
§
§
§
Plaintiffs,
§
§
Case No.
V.
§
§
Jury Trial Demanded
§
§
Defendants.
§
§
JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER
Pursuant to Rule 16, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court ORDERS that the
following schedule will govern deadlines up to and including the trial of this matter:
Date
Event
Discovery commences on all issues.
All motions to amend pleadings or to add parties shall be filed on or
before this date.
Fact Discovery Deadline. Any discovery requests must be propounded
so that the responses are due by this date.
The parties asserting claims for relief shall submit a written offer of
settlement to opposing parties on or before this date. All offers of
settlement are to be private, not filed, and the Court is not to be advised
of the same. The parties are further ORDERED to retain the written
offers of settlement and responses as the Court will use these in assessing
attorney's fees and court costs at the conclusion of trial.
Parties with burden of proof to designate Expert Witnesses and provide
their expert witness reports, to include all information required by Rule
26(a)(2)(B).
Each opposing party shall respond, in writing, to the written offer of
settlement made by the parties asserting claims for relief by this date. All
offers of settlement are to be private, not filed, and the Court is not to be
advised of the same. The parties are further ORDERED to retain the written
offers of settlement and responses as the Court will use these in assessing
attorney's fees and court costs at the conclusion of trial.
Parties shall designate Rebuttal Expert Witnesses on issues for which the
parties do not bear the burden of proof, and provide their expert witness
reports, to include all information required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B).
1
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH
Document 14
Filed 09/03/25
Page 6 of 7
Expert Discovery Deadline. Expert discovery must be completed by this
date.
Any objection to the reliability of an expert's proposed testimony under
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 shall be made by motion, specifically stating
the basis for the objection and identifying the objectionable testimony, not
later than 14 days of receipt of the written report of the expert's proposed
testimony or not later than 14 days of the expert's deposition, if a deposition
is taken, whichever is later. The failure to strictly comply with this
paragraph will be deemed a waiver of any objection that could have
been made pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702
All dispositive motions shall be filed and served on all other parties on or
before this date and shall be limited to 25 pages. Responses shall be filed
and served on all other parties not later than 14 days after the service of the
motion and shall be limited to 20 pages. Any replies shall be filed and
served on all other parties not later than 7 days after the service of the
response and shall be limited to 10 pages, but the Court need not wait for
the reply before ruling on the motion.
Each party shall complete and file the attached "Notice Concerning
Reference to United States Magistrate Judge"
By this date the parties shall meet and confer to determine pre-trial
deadlines, including, inter alia, exchange of exhibit lists, designations of
and objections to deposition testimony, and exchange of demonstratives.
By this date the parties shall exchange a proposed jury charge and questions
for the jury. By this date the parties will also exchange draft Motions in
Limine to determine which may be agreed.
By this date the parties shall exchange any objections to the proposed jury
charge, with supporting explanation and citation of controlling law.
By this date the parties shall also submit to the Court their Motions in
Limine.
By this date the parties will submit to the Court their Joint Pre-Trial Order,
including the identification of issues to be tried, identification of witnesses,
trial schedule provisions, and all other pertinent information. By this date
the parties will also submit to the Court their oppositions to Motions in
Limine.
Final Pre-Trial Conference. The parties shall provide to the Court an agreed
jury charge with supported objections of each party, and proposed questions
for the jury, at the final Pre-Trial Conference. This date should be at least
three months after the dispositive motions deadline and two months before
the proposed trial date, and ideally on a Friday.
The Court will attempt to schedule Jury Selection on a day during the week
of
. Otherwise, Jury Selection shall begin at 9:00
a.m. on
. These dates should be during the week before
the trial date.
Jury Trial Commences at 9:00 a.m. The trial should start on the Monday of
the first or third week of the month.
2
Case 1:25-cv-00347-ADA-DH Document 14 Filed 09/03/25 Page 7 of 7
SIGNED this
day of
, 20 .
Dustin M. Howell
United States Magistrate Judge
AGREED:
By:
By:
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Attorneys for Defendants
3