Midland Christian Educators File Civil Rights Lawsuit Against City of Midland, Police Department

Case 7:22-cv-00185 Document 1 Filed 08/30/22 Page 1 of 36
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION
JARED LEE, DANA ELLIS, §

MATTHEW COUNTS, §
GREGORY MCCLENDON, and §
BARRY RUSSELL, §
§ Civil Action No. 7:22-cv-185
Plaintiffs, §
v. §
§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CITY OF MIDLAND, JENNIE §
ALONZO, ROSEMARY SHARP, and §
CAMILO FONSECA §
§
Defendants. §
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Jared Lee, Dana Ellis, Matthew Counts, Gregory McClendon, and Barry Russell
(collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), by and through counsel, hereby file this civil rights action against
the City of Midland, Jennie Alonzo, individually, Rosemary Sharp, individually, and Camilo
Fonseca, individually, for Defendants’ violations of the United States Constitution, the laws of the
United States, and various Texas state laws and would show the Court as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state
law claims. The Plaintiffs, the “Midland Christian Five,” are five career educators who responded
reasonably, appropriately, and with integrity to a locker room incident involving horseplay among
members of Midland Christian School’s high school baseball team. The Defendants are law
enforcement authorities who—in a remarkable abuse of power—arrested these educators as
retaliation for the educators asserting their Constitutional rights while complying with their
professional duties and federal law. To make these false arrests, the Defendants lied and omitted
material facts about the Midland Christian Five’s actions in sworn affidavits.
2. The fallout from the Defendants’ illegal and unconstitutional actions has forever
changed the lives of the Midland Christian Five. Their images were plastered on worldwide media
and associated with the false allegations of the most vile and callous nature. Ultimately, the
criminal justice system vindicated the Five when a grand jury found what the investigating officers
had known all along: no probable cause of a crime existed.
3. The Midland Christian Five now bring this case to hold the government officials
who violated their rights, and the governments who enabled them, accountable and to prove—once
and for all in the eyes of the public and the law—that the Five did nothing wrong.
****
4. The facts giving rise to this case began in a baseball locker room. In an incident of
horseplay, a sophomore player poked a freshman on his buttocks—over the clothes—with a bat.
Plaintiff Ellis (the secondary school principal) heard a rumor about the incident two days after it
occurred. As discussed below, Ellis heard about the incident through a hearsay account from a
person, who heard from a parent, who had heard from her freshman daughter, who heard a rumor.
5. Upon learning of the rumor, Plaintiff Ellis immediately requested that Plaintiff
McClendon (the athletic director) investigate and identify the students involved. Plaintiff
McClendon, with the assistance of Plaintiff Counts (the assistant principal), interviewed several
baseball players, including the sophomore and the freshman. After having multiple discussions
with players present during the incident, including the freshman “victim”—who denied that any
type of sexual assault occurred—the Plaintiffs determined that the boys had been engaged in locker
room horseplay.
2
6. Indeed, at no time did any school official have reasonable cause to believe the
freshman had been sexually assaulted. To the contrary, in speaking with those involved, no
evidence whatsoever emerged of a sexual assault. And despite some hearsay characterizations of
a poking “in the butt,” the alleged victim himself repeatedly confirmed that the entire incident
“wasn’t a big deal”—that it was nothing more than locker room roughhousing—and that no
penetration occurred. Accounts from those involved made clear that the freshman had simply been
poked on the fully clothed buttocks with a bat—the same version of events that came from the
freshman himself.
7. Nonetheless, the alleged sophomore perpetrator was punished in accordance with
school policy. The coaching staff also counseled all of the players that such conduct would not be
tolerated in the future.
8. Over a week after the incident, another student (who was not present when the
incident occurred) allegedly overheard gossip about it during lunch. In a bizarre and unfortunate
game of “telephone,” a more extreme—and totally false—account of the incident emerged from
this student’s father. In this third- or fourth-hand hearsay account, instead of being “poked in the
butt,” the freshman’s “anus was penetrated far up with a bat.”
9. This gossip was, by all accounts, totally false. No one—not the freshman or the
sophomore involved, the other players present during the event, or the coaches who had supervised
the practice preceding the event—ever reported penetration of any kind. In any event, the student’s
father then reported the unsubstantiated gossip—which grossly misrepresented what actually
occurred—to the police.
10. So began the Defendants’ vindictive and malicious campaign to prosecute Plaintiffs
based upon the unsupported rumor. It quickly became obvious that Defendants, led by Alonzo,
3
were offended—indeed, outraged—that Plaintiffs dared to investigate an unsubstantiated rumor at
the school level before involving law enforcement. And Defendant Alonzo frankly expressed her
outrage during a break in an interview of Plaintiff Ellis, saying “I’m pissed. I’m fucking pissed.
I’m so mad.”
11. Blinded by this unjustified anger, Defendant Alonzo spearheaded a tunnel-visioned
and biased “investigation” into the incident. Among other things, she intentionally excluded from
consideration (and, ultimately, from sworn warrants and criminal complaints) the overwhelming
facts supporting Plaintiffs’ reasonable—and correct—belief that no reportable abuse occurred.
Indeed, though Plaintiffs fully cooperated with Defendant Alonzo’s malicious investigation, she
took offense at Plaintiff Lee’s request—made at the direction of Midland Christian School Board
President Jason Stockstill—for a search warrant before disclosing documents containing sensitive
student information. This request was, of course, in compliance with—if not required by—the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
12. In fact, when explaining the need for a warrant, Plaintiff Lee informed Defendant
Alonzo that, while he wanted to comply, the school’s FERPA obligations required a warrant.
Nonetheless, Defendant Alonzo still took offense at Plaintiffs’ assertion of their constitutional
rights and their protection of student privacy—resentments that Alonzo would never relinquish.
13. In an extreme and unreasonable abuse of power, Defendant Alonzo—supported by
the other defendants—maliciously pursued and obtained false arrest warrants against Plaintiffs for
failing to report child abuse. Significantly, to secure Plaintiffs’ arrests, Defendant Alonzo wrote
arrest warrant affidavits that contained deliberate—or, alternatively, reckless—falsehoods and
omissions. These false statements were calculated to mislead the Justice of the Peace who issued
the warrants.
4
14. Even more egregiously, Defendant Alonzo charged Plaintiffs with the felony of not
only failing to report, but intentionally concealing abuse. Without the concealment allegation, the
failure to report charges would have been misdemeanors and would have thereby created
heightened scrutiny of Defendant Alonzo’s choreographed perp walk that Defendant Alonzo
premeditated to publicly humiliate and stigmatize the career educators.
15. Using the fraudulently obtained warrants, Defendant Alonzo, along with several
other MPD officers, arrested Plaintiffs on the school campus, intentionally making a spectacle in
front of their students, colleagues, and the parents of their students. The Midland Christian Five
were also intentionally paraded in front of the media that was present, in accordance with
Defendant Alonzo’s premeditated plan. Indeed, shortly after the arrests, footage of the arrests
appeared on local news outlets and quickly spread around the world.
16. After spending hours in jail for these baseless arrests, the Five were each released
on bond. Nearly three months later, a grand jury no-billed every case against the Midland Christian
Five, and the district attorney dismissed the unfounded charges.
17. Despite their eventual exoneration, however, the false and malicious allegations
against these career educators have profoundly disrupted their lives, irreversibly damaged their
reputations, and caused severe and ongoing emotional distress and trauma. To clear their names
once and for all, the Midland Christian Five file suit against Defendants’ flagrant abuse of power.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal
question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights). This Court further has supplemental jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the related Texas state law claims. Venue is proper in the
Western District of Texas, Midland-Odessa Division, as it is the district in which the defendants
5
are located and in which the events giving rise to this action occurred in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(b).
PARTIES
19. Plaintiff Jared Lee is a resident of Midland County, Texas. He was the
superintendent of Midland Christian School, a position he held for four years. The 2021-2022
school year was his thirteenth year on the faculty of the school, and his nineteenth year in
education. Plaintiff Lee previously served Midland Christian School as a teacher, junior high
school principal, and academic dean. Plaintiff Lee attended the school as a child while his father
was a principal who later became superintendent. His mother was a teacher at Midland Christian
School before later serving as its development director. Plaintiff Lee graduated from the school in
1999. His two daughters are currently students at the school.
20. Plaintiff Dana Ellis is a resident of Midland County, Texas. She was the principal
of the secondary school at Midland Christian School, a position she held for two years. The 2021-
2022 school year was Plaintiff Ellis’s sixth year on the faculty, having previously served as middle
school principal and an elementary school teacher. She has been in education for twelve years.
Plaintiff Ellis graduated from Midland Christian School in 1998, and she has four children who
are currently attending the school.
21. Plaintiff Matthew Counts is a resident of Midland County, Texas. At the relevant
time, he was the assistant principal of the secondary school and a football coach at Midland
Christian School. The 2021-2022 school year was Plaintiff Counts’s fifth year on the faculty at the
school, having spent the previous years as a teacher and coach. He attended Midland Christian
School throughout high school and played football. Plaintiff Counts graduated from Midland
Christian School in 2013.
6
22. Plaintiff Gregory McClendon is a resident of Midland County, Texas. He is the
former athletic director and head football coach at Midland Christian School, a position he held
for over twenty years. Plaintiff McClendon’s son was a quarterback for the Midland Christian
School football team and won three state championships with the team with his father as coach.
23. Plaintiff Barry Russell is a resident of Midland County, Texas. He was the head
baseball coach at Midland Christian School during the relevant time period. Plaintiff Russell has
received numerous honors over the years, including the following awards: National Sunbelt Class
Hall of Fame Coach, Texas Sports Writers Association Coach of the Year, National Federation of
State High School Association Coach of the Year, Midland Independent School District Hero for
Kids Award, American Baseball Coaches Association Regional Coach of the Year for High School
Division II, and Texas High School Baseball Association All Star Coach. Plaintiff Russell has also
served as President of the Texas High School Baseball Coaches Association. He has been in
education for thirty-four years, and he served as the head baseball coach for Midland High School
for twenty-two years.
24. Defendant City of Midland is a municipal corporation organized under the
Constitution and laws of the State of Texas and located within the Western District of Texas,
Midland-Odessa Division. The Midland Police Department (“MPD”) is a department operated by
the City of Midland. MPD sets policy for its police officers. Defendant City of Midland may be
served by serving the City Secretary at P.O. Box 1152, Midland, Texas 79702 or in any other
manner permitted by law.
25. Defendant Jennie Alonzo is employed by the City of Midland as an MPD detective
who, at all times relevant to this action, was acting under the color of law and within the scope of
her employment. Defendant Alonzo is sued in her individual capacity.
7
26. Defendant Rosemary Sharp is employed by the City of Midland as an MPD
sergeant who, at all times relevant to this action, was acting under the color of law and within the
scope of her employment. Defendant Sharp is sued in her individual capacity.
27. Defendant Camilo Fonseca is employed by the City of Midland as an MPD officer
who, at all times relevant to this action, was acting under the color of law and within the scope of
his employment. Defendant Fonseca is sued in his individual capacity.
FACTS
28. The Midland Christian Five were maliciously prosecuted and falsely arrested by
Defendants for purportedly failing to report child abuse and acting with the intent to conceal such
alleged abuse. As a consequence of these false arrests, the Five spent hours in jail, underwent
excruciating public humiliation, and experienced severe reputational damage both personally and
professionally, and particularly to their careers in education. They were immediately placed on
administrative leave by Midland Christian School pending the outcome of their criminal cases.
Plaintiffs Lee, Ellis, McClendon, and Russell never returned in any official capacity nor do they
currently work in the education field. Plaintiff Counts was demoted from his role as assistant
principal.
29. The facts common to all of the Midland Christian Five’s claims are recited below.
 Midland Christian School Administrators Hear a Rumor About the Baseball Team.
30. News of the locker room incident that led to this case first reached a member of the
Midland Christian School administration late in the evening on Thursday, January 20, 2022. The
news came not from an outcry by any victim—but instead through a chain of hearsay. Specifically,
a sixth-grade teacher at Midland Christian School, received a text message from a ninth-grade
parent indicating that the ninth-grade parent’s daughter had told the ninth-grade parent that a
8
freshman involved in a locker room incident had been severely injured, requiring him to miss
school. The chain of hearsay was as follows:
Chain of Hearsay from Initial Report
????????????
Annonymous ninth-grade girl (not on boys' baseball team or

eyewitness)
Mother of annonymous ninth-grade girl
Sixth-grade
teacher
Principal
Dana Ellis
31. The rumor provided no information as to the identity of the alleged perpetrator—
or for that matter, the ninth-grade girl reporting it. Nonetheless, through conversation with the
sixth-grade teacher, Plaintiff Ellis learned that it was further rumored that the alleged victim had
not returned to school since the incident because of injuries allegedly sustained.
32. Plaintiff Ellis easily determined, however, that the alleged victim had not missed a
day of school. Plaintiff Ellis decided to further investigate the rumor because, among other things:
(1) the rumor was fourth-hand hearsay that originated from a ninth-grade female student who was
not on the baseball team or a witness to the alleged conduct; (2) the rumor did not provide the
identity of the perpetrator; and (3) there was an immediately apparent falsehood (i.e. that the
alleged victim involved had missed school) in the hearsay account.
9
33. The very next morning—less than twelve hours after first learning of the incident
and before the start of the school day—Plaintiff Ellis requested that Plaintiff McClendon
investigate. Plaintiff McClendon asked Plaintiff Counts to assist. Plaintiff Ellis also informed
Plaintiff Lee (the superintendent) of the investigation. Plaintiff Ellis did not participate in the initial
investigation because her son was on the baseball team.
 Student Witnesses Explain What Actually Occurred—Horseplay Involving a Bat.
34. Plaintiffs McClendon and Counts spoke with several baseball players about the
rumor, including most importantly, the freshman “victim” himself. These players consistently
reported that the freshman had been placed on the ground by one other sophomore baseball player.
With the freshman player in his baseball clothes (including baseball pants and sliding shorts) fully
fastened and on the entire time, the sophomore poked the freshman on his bottom with a bat one
time. Everyone, including the freshman stated that the incident was “not a big deal.” The freshman
was asked if the bat somehow penetrated his “butt hole.” He repeatedly denied that this had
occurred.
35. The investigation continued on Monday, January 24, which happened to be the first
day head baseball coach Plaintiff Russell returned to school after nearly two weeks of sick leave
due to a severe COVID-19 infection (that at one point sent him to the emergency room). Plaintiff
Counts asked Plaintiff Russell to assist in the continued investigation. Plaintiff Russell saw the
freshman alleged victim in the hallway and asked if he was okay. The freshman informed Plaintiff
Russell that the sophomore player had tapped him on the behind with the bat. The freshman again
said that he was fully clothed, was not hurt, and that there was no penetration.
36. Plaintiff Russell held a meeting with the baseball team and told the team that the
administration needed to determine who had poked the freshman with a bat. Later that day, the
10
sophomore boy approached Plaintiff Counts, and later Plaintiff Russell, and admitted that he was
the one who had poked the freshman with a bat. Again, the sophomore stated that the bat did not
penetrate the freshman’s anus.
37. To discipline the sophomore player, Plaintiffs Lee, Ellis, and Counts imposed the
school’s highest punishment short of expulsion.
 A Parent Reports an Inaccurate, Exaggerated Rumor to Police.
38. On Thursday, January 27—a week after Plaintiff Ellis was first notified of the
rumor and days after Plaintiffs’ investigation had concluded—the parent of a freshman baseball
player, who was not present the day of the alleged incident, began sending a series of emails. That
parent, Matthew Friez, had a lengthy history, dating back six years, of emailing Plaintiff Lee and
the Midland Christian School administration with a litany of complaints. Friez was in a state of
perpetual dissatisfaction with the Midland Christian School administration. Friez reported that his
non-witness son told him that the bat had penetrated the freshman’s anus. Friez, therefore,
concluded that the incident was a sexual assault—based not on any facts, but upon multiple levels
of inaccurate hearsay.
39. Plaintiff Lee informed Friez that the incident had been handled appropriately and
that Friez’s account was completely inconsistent with what had occurred. Nonetheless, Plaintiff
Lee also encouraged Friez to report the incident to the authorities if he believed it appropriate.
Plaintiff Lee wrote to Friez, “You have every right to contact the authorities[,]” and “You are
welcome to make a report based upon your son’s perception and information he gave to you, but
I can tell you that after many interviews with the players involved, there has been no evidence of
a sexual assault.”
11
 The Plaintiffs Attempt to Comply with the Police Investigation.
40. On Friday, January 28, Matthew Friez contacted the Midland Police Department
and reported his son’s hearsay account of the incident. Defendant Fonseca and another uniformed
officer visited Midland Christian School and interviewed Plaintiff Lee. This interview was
recorded by Defendant Fonseca’s body camera. Despite video evidence to the contrary, Defendant
Fonseca—according to Detective Alonzo’s warrant affidavits—would later report that “Lee stated
that [the administration’s] investigation found the baseball bat did in fact touch [the freshman’s]
anus but did not go inside.”
41. But not only did the school’s investigation make no such finding, Plaintiff Lee
made no such statement. Indeed, Plaintiff Lee never used the word “anus” in describing what he
believed occurred—though he quoted Matthew Friez’s use of this word. Nor did he suggest that
contact with the student’s anus—by any name—had occurred. Instead, Plaintiff Lee stated that a
bat was “pushed around [the student’s] bottom.” Significantly, Plaintiff Lee informed Defendant
Fonseca that, after interviewing those involved with the incident, the administration found no
evidence that the bat penetrated anyone’s anus.
42. On that same day, Defendant Fonseca spoke with the freshman’s mother who was
aware of the incident but was very surprised when Defendant Fonseca told her Matthew Friez’s
account of it. The freshman’s mother was also a teacher (with the same reporting obligations as
the Midland Christian Five), and she explained that she learned about the incident shortly after it
happened. She told Defendant Fonseca that her son’s behavior did not change after the incident
and that she did not believe a bat penetrated her son’s anus. Defendant Fonseca also admitted to
the freshman’s mother that the principal (Plaintiff Ellis) was not told about any alleged penetration.
12
43. Following the initial interviews by Defendant Fonseca, there were two full weeks
of apparent inaction by Defendants with regard to their investigation of the incident. Two weeks
later, on Friday, February 11, law enforcement finally spoke directly with the alleged freshman
victim. On that same day, the freshman underwent a sexual assault nurse examiner (“SANE”)
exam. The exam indicated there was no injury and that no trauma was observed.
44. Also on the same day, the Defendants arrested the sophomore player who had
admitted to poking the freshman. This arrest was made at Midland Christian School. At the time
of the sophomore’s arrest, Defendant Alonzo ordered Plaintiff Ellis to not contact the boy’s parents
about the arrest. Defendant Alonzo remarked to Defendant Sharp that if anyone called the
sophomore’s parents, they too would be arrested—adding “I don’t give a fuck.”
45. Defendant Alonzo initially insisted upon perp walking the boy through the front
doors of the school where his arrest would be more visible—despite several school officials
requesting that he be escorted through the back doors. Only when Defendants Alonzo and Sharp
received a phone call from a sergeant making the same request on behalf of the school did
Defendant Alonzo reluctantly acquiesce.
46. Nonetheless, Defendant Alonzo remarked during this arrest that “it’s good to know
where to park.” In making this comment, Defendant Alonzo revealed her premeditated plan to park
at the front of the school again during her future arrests of Plaintiffs so that their arrests could be
as visible and as humiliating as possible.
47. Before leaving the school, Defendant Alonzo asked Plaintiff Ellis for the
documentation of the administration’s investigation into the alleged incident. Plaintiff Ellis
informed Defendant Alonzo that Plaintiff Lee was in possession of those documents and that
13
Plaintiff Lee was not on campus. Defendant Alonzo ordered Plaintiff Ellis to instruct Plaintiff Lee
to produce the documentation to her by noon the following Monday.
48. On Monday, February 14, Plaintiff Lee contacted Defendant Alonzo. During that
call, Plaintiff Lee expressed his desire and willingness to comply with Defendant Alonzo’s
investigation but requested that she obtain a warrant to ensure that the school was in compliance
with FERPA—a federal law protecting private information about students. Plaintiff Lee made this
request after being instructed to do so by the School Board President Jason Stockstill. Defendant
Alonzo responded angrily and stated, “We are going to get a warrant and get everyone’s
computer!”
 The Defendants Search the School.
49. That afternoon, Defendant Alonzo returned to the school with not only a search
warrant, but also several police vehicles and a crime scene investigation van. As in the case of the
criminal complaints and arrest warrants that would come later, the affidavit supporting this search
warrant contained material misrepresentations and omissions.
50. Relying upon her falsely obtained warrant, Defendant Alonzo swarmed the
school’s front office with several armed police officers who proceeded to search Plaintiffs’ offices
and computers. The officers also took photographs of all the offices within the main office,
including photographs of several staff members entirely unrelated to the investigation.
51. Defendant Alonzo then conducted voluntary interviews of Plaintiffs McClendon,
Ellis, Counts, and Lee. These interviews were audio recorded. The statements in those interviews
were consistent with their belief that, prior to Friday, January 28, there was no evidence that a bat
had contacted or penetrated a student’s anus or that any form of a sexual assault had occurred.
14
Plaintiff Russell was not present on campus to be interviewed. However, he contacted Defendant
Alonzo, as instructed, to schedule his voluntary interview for a later date.
 Through Lies and Omissions, Defendants Obtain Warrants and Falsely Arrest the
Midland Christian Five in a Manner Deliberately Calculated for Maximum
Humiliation.
52. Two days later, on Wednesday, February 16, Defendant Alonzo, supported by
Defendants Sharp and Fonseca, signed arrest warrant affidavits that led to the malicious
prosecution and false arrests of Plaintiffs for felony failure to report child abuse with the intent to
conceal. Defendants executed the arrest warrants at Midland Christian School and purposefully
walked the Midland Christian Five through the front doors in handcuffs to create a public spectacle
and lasting humiliation. The Five requested the opportunity to turn themselves in at the police
station but were denied. And there is no indication that summonses were ever considered. Instead,
it was clear that Defendants’ goal was to publicly humiliate the Midland Christian Five and to
create the enduring stigma that the Five would inevitably experience as a result of their public
arrests.
53. Significantly, the Defendants “perp walked” the Midland Christian Five right past
the media that was present—apparently in accordance with Defendant Alonzo’s premeditated plan.
The arrests received worldwide media attention ranging from the local news to coverage by the
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Newsweek. News of the Five’s arrests was also
circulated across social media outlets such as Reddit and Tik Tok.
54. Following their arrests, the Midland Christian Five remained in police custody for
several hours before being released on bonds that evening. Three months later, a grand jury no-
billed the charges.
15
 The Defendants Obtain Unconstitutional Warrant Affidavits.
55. Defendant Alonzo wrote and swore to false allegations, in nearly identical (and
unconstitutional) form arrest warrant affidavits, which resulted in the malicious prosecution and
false arrests of the Midland Christian Five. Defendants Sharp and Fonseca assisted in the
preparation of those warrant affidavits and knowingly provided false information that was included
therein. The arrest warrant affidavits contained deliberate and reckless falsehoods, misstatements,
and omissions that were material and necessary to a finding of probable cause.
56. Egregiously, to obtain felony warrants, Defendant Alonzo—with the support,
assistance, and approval of Defendants Sharp and Fonseca—made the false allegation of
concealment. The concealment element was vital and material to the felony charges. Without it,
the failure to report charges would have been misdemeanors. And without felony charges,
Defendant Alonzo’s choreographed public display in arresting Plaintiffs at the school would have
drawn heightened scrutiny—and likely would not have occurred at all. Thus, the concealment
element was critical to Defendants’ premeditated plans. And it was an allegation that was created
completely out of whole cloth.
57. Defendant Alonzo’s affidavits created the overall false impression that on or about
Thursday, January 20, 2022—two days after the locker room incident occurred—the Midland
Christian Five were aware that a student had been sexually assaulted. 1 Specifically, Defendant
1
Significantly, despite the global nature of the overarching allegations in the arrest warrant
affidavits, Defendant Alonzo was aware that Plaintiff Russell was absent from school due to a
COVID infection on Tuesday, January 18—the day the alleged incident occurred. Plaintiff Russell
did not return to school until the following Monday, January 24. So Plaintiff Russell could not
have failed to report abuse on January 20. The arrest warrant affidavits acknowledge that Plaintiff
Ellis notified Plaintiff Lee of the rumor on January 21 and that Plaintiffs McClendon and Counts
were notified as well. However, the affidavits are silent as to when Plaintiff Russell was notified.
16
Alonzo stated—ignoring directly controverting evidence—that the Five “knew of [an] incident on
January 20, 2022, that one of the baseball players had a baseball bat shoved into his anus.”
58. Defendant Alonzo further created the patently false impression that the alleged
penetration was reported by a credible and knowledgeable complainant (instead the report was
hearsay upon hearsay), and that the allegation was uncontroverted (in fact, it was not only
controverted, but contrary to the accounts of everyone involved). Defendant Alonzo also falsely
stated that Plaintiff Lee was unwilling to provide documentation of the school’s internal
investigation—omitting that he was simply trying to comply with federal privacy law. Defendant
Alonzo also falsely insinuated that all of the Five were intending to conceal the incident of abuse
from authorities when there was no evidence that any of them—particularly Barry Russell who
had been out sick—were intending to do so.
59. Defendant Alonzo further materially misstated and omitted the details of how the
incident was first reported to the administration. The report was made through a chain of
hearsay: from an unknown person to a female student to a parent to a teacher and then to Plaintiff
Ellis. Defendant Alonzo further materially misstated and omitted the details of how MPD was
notified of a rumor of alleged penetration of the student’s anus, over a week after the incident
had occurred. Defendant Alonzo did not make clear that the incident was not reported directly
from a participant to MPD, but instead through unreliable hearsay from a perpetually disgruntled
parent whose child was neither a victim nor a witness to the incident.
60. Defendant Alonzo also omitted that this disgruntled parent’s belated report was
made to MPD just one day after he communicated the unfounded allegations to administrators.
And the affidavits omitted that, by the time a parent reported the rumor to the police, the Five had
17
already investigated and spoken directly with the students actually involved, among other sources
of information, to conclude that only a single poke on a student’s fully-clothed buttocks occurred.
61. Defendant Alonzo additionally omitted that the disgruntled parent who reported
that rumor refused to allow any administrator to speak with his son about the new—and incorrect—
version of the rumor. Instead of the delayed report making it clear that a sexual assault occurred,
these facts supported the reasonable position at that time that the recently concluded investigation
had correctly assessed the situation. Defendant Alonzo was aware of the details of this belated
report as they are referenced in her own investigative report.
62. Defendant Alonzo further materially misstated and omitted the details of the
school’s compliance with her investigation, the seriousness with which Plaintiffs handled the
incident, and Plaintiff Lee’s repeated encouragement to the disgruntled parent to report his
belief of abuse to police. Defendant Alonzo stated in her affidavits that Plaintiff Lee would not
provide documentation of the administration’s investigation and would not answer questions
during a phone call. But Defendant Alonzo omitted that when she asked for any and all records
pertaining to the investigation, Plaintiff Lee informed her that he wanted to comply, but would
first need a search warrant in order to meet his obligations under FERPA.
63. Defendant Alonzo also omitted that Plaintiffs Ellis, Counts, McClendon, and
Russell took no part in discussions with Defendant Alonzo about whether the private internal
investigation documents would be disclosed without the service of legal process. Defendant
Alonzo further failed to state that, once she obtained a search warrant, all of the records were
disclosed to her without incident and that each Plaintiff, with the exception of Plaintiff Russell,
voluntarily submitted to an interview with her. Plaintiff Russell was unable to be interviewed
because he was not present at the school during Defendant Alonzo’s visit. He, nonetheless, called
18
Defendant Alonzo to arrange to meet with her, ultimately scheduling a meeting with her for
February 16.
64. Defendant Alonzo also omitted that Plaintiffs instituted the highest punishment
short of expulsion that the school allows to the alleged perpetrator. And Defendant Alonzo did not
include in her affidavits Plaintiff Lee’s repeated encouragement to the disgruntled parent that he
had “every right to contact the authorities” and that he was “welcome to make a report based upon
[his] son’s perception[.]” Defendant Alonzo was aware of all of these details as they are referenced
in her own investigative report, but she intentionally and maliciously—or at least recklessly—
omitted them in her affidavits.
65. Defendant Alonzo further interchanged, throughout her affidavits, the terms
“butt” and “anus,” recklessly creating the misconception that Plaintiffs believed the bat
penetrated the alleged victim’s anus. That was not the case. Defendant Alonzo was fully aware
that the Midland Christian Five did not believe the bat contacted the student’s anus, as this was
documented in their investigative notes, their voluntary interviews with police, Defendant
Alonzo’s investigative report, and other contemporaneous recordings.
66. Finally, Defendant Alonzo materially omitted from her affidavits facts that would
have placed the locker room incident in its proper context. She failed to include that the alleged
victim’s behavior did not change following the incident—one fact, among many, that weighed
against a finding that there was reportable abuse under Texas Family Code §§ 261.001 and
261.101. Defendant Alonzo further omitted that the alleged victim and perpetrator remained
friends and in good graces, and that the alleged victim felt safe at school—and, apparently, at
baseball practice—following the incident. Defendant Alonzo also failed to mention that the alleged
19
victim underwent a SANE exam, and that during that exam, it was determined that he had no injury
and that no trauma was observed.
67. Instead, the only mention of a SANE exam in the affidavits indicates that a SANE
exam was not conducted immediately after the incident—recklessly creating the false impression
that no SANE exam was ever conducted. In reality, a SANE exam was conducted five days prior
to the date the affidavits were written, which was ironically, two weeks after law enforcement
became involved. Defendant Alonzo was fully aware of the facts that she omitted as they were
discovered during MPD’s investigation.
68. A non-exhaustive list of the material falsehoods and omissions from the affidavits
are included herein.
The Arrest Warrant Affidavits The Truth
1. “I was notified in reference to a possible A perpetually disgruntled parent of a student

sexual assault of a child that . . . was who was not present at baseball practice on
reported to have occurred on or about the day of the alleged incident and was,
Thursday, January 20, 2022.” therefore, a non-witness, informed
Defendants of his belief that a bat had
penetrated a baseball player’s anus. The
alleged incident had occurred on Tuesday,
January 18 and Friez made his report ten
days later—well after Plaintiffs had already
completed an investigation. 2
2
“In Franks [v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978)], the Supreme Court observed that the warrant
requirement is meant to allow the magistrate to make an independent evaluation of the matter. It
requires affiants to set forth particular facts and circumstances underlying the existence of probable
cause, including those that concern the reliability of the information and the credibility of the
source to avoid deliberately or reckless false statements.” Deshotel v. CardCash Exch., Inc., No.
6:19-373, 2020 WL 2319300, at *8 (W.D. La. Apr. 2, 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted)
(alterations included); see also Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 165 (1978) (“[T]he affidavit
must recite . . . some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the
informant, whose identity need not be disclosed was credible or his information reliable.”) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (alterations included).
20
2. “It was discovered that on Thursday, Plaintiff Ellis was first notified of an
January 20, 2022, Ellis was notified in incident through a chain of hearsay: a ninth-
reference to a sexual assault that had grade, female student told her parent who
occurred. Ellis stated that she knew . . . one told a sixth-grade teacher who told Plaintiff
of [the] baseball players had a baseball bat Ellis that there was a rumor. Plaintiff Ellis
shoved into his anus.” was told it was an incident involving a bat
during which the boy’s pants were on the
entire time and they were horseplaying.
(Def. Alonzo’s Report). Plaintiff Ellis heard
something about a baseball bat and a rear but
did not know any specifics. (Def. Alonzo’s
2/14/22 Interview of Pl. Ellis). Plaintiff Ellis
did not believe a sexual assault had
occurred.
3. “On January 21, 2022, Ellis notified Lee in Plaintiff Ellis notified Plaintiff Lee that an
reference to the student having a baseball incident was rumored to have occurred
bat shoved up his anus to which he was during which the boy’s pants were on the
aware on that date.” entire time and they were horseplaying.
Plaintiff Ellis did not know any specifics.
4. “At that time Lee directed [McClendon and The school administrators investigated
Counts] to conduct an ‘investigation’ into because they did not have reliable
the incident instead of notifying law information as to what occurred, nor did
enforcement or another state agency . . . ” they know which students were involved.
There was absolutely no evidence that the
school administrators conducted an
investigation in bad faith or with the goal of
evading their requirement to report child
abuse. And ultimately, Plaintiffs did not
contact law enforcement because they did
not believe a sexual assault occurred.
5. “On February 14, 2022, I received a call On February 14, 2022, Lee offered his notes
from Lee who stated that he would not of the investigation and stated, “we want to
provide the documentation and refused to comply and cooperate,” but he first
answer any questions during the call, he requested a search warrant to comply with
requested a search warrant.” FERPA.
6. During a conversation with Officer Fonseca Plaintiff Lee never stated that he believed
on January 28, 2022, “Lee stated that their the baseball bat touched an anus and made
investigation found the baseball bat did in clear the alleged victim had never “outcried”
fact touch [the freshman player’s] anus but or stated this occurred. (Def. Fonseca’s
did not go inside.” Body Camera).
21
7. OMITTED FACTS Plaintiff Lee’s investigative notes indicated

his belief that a bat was pushed on the
player’s butt or that the player received a
poke on his butt. Matthew Friez’s hearsay
account of the incident was not supported by
the evidence collected. The administrators
spoke with the freshman player at least twice
on January 21 and both times he stated that
his pants were on and that he was just poked
on the butt.
8. “During the course of the investigation, it During the course of the investigation, it was
was found that [Plaintiffs] had knowledge found that Plaintiffs had knowledge of an
of the sexual assault on January 21, incident in which a student was poked on the
2022[.]” butt with a bat, while wearing sliding shorts
and baseball pants. Plaintiffs had no reason
to believe—and did not believe—a sexual
assault had occurred. The freshman player
himself, inter alia, twice stated on January
21 that the bat did not penetrate.
9. OMITTED FACTS Plaintiff Ellis was not told that the baseball
bat penetrated. (And she was told that it had
not penetrated.)
10. “Instead of reporting the incident they have On February 14, 2022, Lee offered his notes
continually attempted to conceal the of investigation and stated that he wanted to
incident o[f] abuse from authorities.” comply, but he first requested a search
warrant out of his concern that he needed to
comply with FERPA.
Plaintiff Lee encouraged Friez to contact

law enforcement if Friez believed a sexual
assault occurred. Plaintiff Lee told Friez on
February 10, 2022, in a meeting that Friez
surreptitiously recorded (unbeknownst to
Lee), that Friez was not wrong for talking to
the police and that Friez had every right to
talk to the police. On February 14, 2022,
Plaintiff Lee voluntarily interviewed with
Defendant Alonzo about the investigation.
22
[Continued from previous page . . . .] Plaintiff Ellis told Defendant Alonzo that
Plaintiff Lee had the notes of the
investigation and that she herself did not
“Instead of reporting the incident they have participate in the investigation. And, on
continually attempted to conceal the February 14, 2022, Plaintiff Ellis voluntarily
incident o[f] abuse from authorities.” interviewed with Defendant Alonzo about
the investigation.
Plaintiff Counts provided notes of his

investigation as requested. And on February
14, 2022, Plaintiff Counts voluntarily
interviewed with Defendant Alonzo about
the investigation.
Plaintiff McClendon provided notes of his

investigation as requested. And on February
14, 2022, Plaintiff McClendon voluntarily
interviewed with Defendant Alonzo about
the investigation.
Plaintiff Russell was on sick leave with a

severe COVID infection during the time of
the alleged incident and during the time it
was initially reported. Plaintiff Russell was
not requested to provide any notes in
reference to the investigation. Plaintiff
Russell was not present at the school when
Defendant Alonzo conducted the voluntary
interviews of the other Plaintiffs. However,
in the days following, Plaintiff Russell
reached out to Defendant Alonzo to
schedule his interview for Wednesday,
February 16, 2022, at 3 p.m. Plaintiff Russell
was arrested on February 16 before he had
the opportunity to attend his interview.
Plaintiffs Ellis, Counts, McClendon, and

Russell took no part in discussions with
Defendant Alonzo about whether the private
internal investigation documents would be
disclosed without the service of legal
process.
23
11. “The [Plaintiffs] conducted their own Plaintiffs conducted a reasonable and
‘investigation’ although they had genuine investigation to determine what
knowledge of the sexual assault.” occurred and never received evidence of a
sexual assault. Defendant Alonzo’s derisive
use of quotation marks in referring to
Plaintiffs’ investigation is indicative of her
contempt for the school and its decision to
make a reasonable inquiry into the rumor
instead of mindlessly reporting a chain of
false hearsay to authorities.
Plaintiff Lee believed that a bat pushed or

poked the freshman’s butt. The freshman
himself at least repeatedly told
administrators the bat did not penetrate.
Plaintiffs never had knowledge of a sexual
assault.
12. “[In notes taken by Plaintiffs McClendon The notes from Plaintiff Counts indicated
and Counts] there was documentation that that the freshman stated the bat prodded him
describes [the freshman’s] anus was but did not penetrate. The sophomore who
touched with the baseball bat.” poked him with the bat stated the same.
The notes from Plaintiff McClendon

indicated that the freshman was poked on the
outside of his clothes with a bat and that the
bat did not go inside his rectum or in any
way penetrate.
There was absolutely no documentation

from either Plaintiff that the freshman’s anus
was touched.
24
13. “None of the students were interviewed by Plaintiffs conducted interviews of several
a forensic interviewer. The victim did not students, including those directly involved,
have a forensic interview, nor did he have a and determined that the incident was a bat
SANE done at that time due to law poking a student’s fully-clothed buttocks.
enforcement not being notified of the
incident.”
Law enforcement was notified of the alleged
incident on January 28, 2022, and yet no
immediate forensic interview or SANE
exam of the “victim” occurred. That
interview and exam did not occur until
Friday, February 11—two weeks after law
enforcement itself became involved.
Nevertheless, a SANE exam was performed

prior to the warrant affidavit, and it
determined that there had been no injury or
trauma—a material fact intentionally
omitted from the affidavit.
14. OMITTED FACTS The freshman’s behavior did not change
following the incident. The freshman and his
alleged assailant remained friends and in
good graces, and the alleged victim felt safe
at school (and, apparently, baseball practice)
following the incident.
15. “I was also given emails that contained The initial complainant to the police did not
communication between the initial provide the initial report received by
complainant [and Plaintiffs that] made very Plaintiffs. The complainant to the police,
clear that a sexual assault had occurred and Matthew Friez, was the parent of a student
the school had a duty to report.” who was not present at baseball practice on
the day of the alleged incident and was a
non-witness. Matthew Friez, therefore, had
no direct knowledge of the alleged incident.
The emails did not make very clear that a
sexual assault had occurred. The emails
instead made clear that Matthew Friez had
heard an unsubstantiated, hearsay rumor that
the Plaintiffs had already investigated.
25
16. “The complainant told the school By the time the rumor, and a more extreme
administration if they did not report the version at that, reached Friez—well over a
incident, he would have to as a week after the alleged incident occurred—
mandatory/professional reporter. There the school had already spoken with everyone
were multiple emails exchanged. Several of who had firsthand knowledge of the
the administrators refused to report the incident. The administrators spoke with the
incident as shown in emails when freshman repeatedly, and he repeatedly
communicating and responding to the stated that his pants were on and that he was
complainant.” just poked on the butt. The freshman also
repeatedly stated that the bat did not
penetrate. Plaintiff Lee informed Friez in the
emails that the school had found no evidence
of a bat penetrating the child’s anus and that
Friez’s son’s account of the alleged incident
was not accurate. Nonetheless, Plaintiff Lee
encouraged Friez to contact law
enforcement if Friez believed a sexual
assault occurred.
69. Defendants City of Midland and Sharp were aware of and thereby on notice of a
repeated pattern of unconstitutional and unprofessional behavior on the part of Defendant Alonzo
that resulted in unreliable and untrustworthy investigations and unreliable and untrustworthy
sworn testimony before courts. Defendant Alonzo’s unreliable investigations and testimony have
been at the center of numerous criminal cases in Midland that ultimately were dismissed as
unfounded and unsupported. These faulty criminal proceedings have wreaked havoc on the lives
and constitutional rights of numerous members of the Midland community. The City of Midland
approved of, was deliberately indifferent to, and/or turned a blind eye to Defendant Alonzo’s
misconduct. Defendants City of Midland and Sharp failed to adequately train and supervise
Defendant Alonzo in conducting reliable and trustworthy investigations and in providing reliable
and trustworthy testimony before judicial officers.
26
70. Defendant Sharp not only observed the repeated conduct across numerous cases as
Defendant Alonzo’s direct supervisor, but Defendant Sharp also specifically approved of and
helped to facilitate Defendant Alonzo’s misconduct against Plaintiffs in this instance. Defendant
Sharp participated in the investigation of the locker room incident at Midland Christian School.
She was, therefore, aware that Plaintiffs genuinely had no cause to believe that reportable abuse
occurred, and she was aware that Plaintiffs were earnestly cooperating with Defendants’
investigation. And yet, Defendant Sharp gave approval for Defendant Alonzo to pursue felony
failure to report with intent to conceal charges and arrests against Plaintiffs. Defendant Sharp
further assisted Defendant Alonzo in preparing the arrest warrant affidavits, and she provided
information that was included in those affidavits.
71. Similarly, Defendant Fonseca was aware of and thereby on notice of a repeated
pattern of unconstitutional and unprofessional behavior on the part of Defendant Alonzo. And
Defendant Fonseca was aware that Plaintiffs genuinely had no cause to believe that reportable
abuse had occurred. For example, Defendant Fonseca’s notes, dated January 28, 2022, stated that
Defendant Ellis had been told that the baseball bat did not penetrate.
72. On January 28, 2022, Defendant Fonseca witnessed the alleged victim’s own
mother’s shock when Defendant Fonseca informed her of the new, more extreme rumor that the
baseball bat had penetrated her son’s rectum. Defendant Fonseca was also very close to the
investigation and was aware that the alleged victim’s baseball pants and sliding shorts were on
during the incident and that the alleged victim’s behavior did not change following the incident.
And yet, Defendant Fonseca assisted Defendant Alonzo in crafting materially false and misleading
arrest warrant affidavits and in falsely arresting Plaintiffs. Moreover, Defendant Fonseca provided
information that was included in the false and misleading warrant affidavits.
27
73. Defendant City of Midland has maintained a policy, custom, and practice of
substandard ethical training and supervision of officers in their investigative and testimonial
functions. As part of that custom, Defendant Alonzo was not properly trained or supervised in
conducting reliable and trustworthy investigations and providing reliable and trustworthy sworn
testimony before courts. As a consequence, upon information and belief, Midland residents,
including Plaintiffs, have been arrested and prosecuted without cause in violation of the Fourth
Amendment and other constitutional rights.
CAUSES OF ACTION
74. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs by reference herein.
75. Plaintiffs had the right under the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution to be secure in their persons, homes, and property against unreasonable seizure and
to not have a warrant issued for their arrests without probable cause. The Fourteenth Amendment
protects these rights against deprivation by state actors. The Fourteenth Amendment also protects
against the deprivation of liberty without due process of law.
76. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, every person who, under color of any statute,
ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of any State, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen
of the United States to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the parties injured in an action for redress.
77. Each Defendant is a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
78. Each Defendant, jointly, severally, or both, deprived Plaintiffs of their rights under
the Fourth Amendment as incorporated and applied to the states through the Fourteenth
Amendment. Each Defendant also jointly, severally, or both, deprived Plaintiffs of due process in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
28
79. The acts and omissions of each Defendant were a proximate cause and cause-in-
fact of Plaintiffs’ damages.
Count 1 42 U.S.C. § 1983: False Arrest in Violation of Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments
80. Each of the paragraphs of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully herein.
81. As described above, Defendants Alonzo, Sharp, and Fonseca, while acting under
the color of law and within the scope of their employment, deprived Plaintiffs of their Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights.
82. On February 16, 2022, while acting under color of Texas law, Defendant Alonzo
deprived Plaintiffs or caused them to be deprived of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments by knowingly or recklessly preparing and swearing to arrest warrant affidavits that
contained numerous materially false and misleading statements and omissions.
83. Defendant Alonzo presented the arrest warrant affidavits to a Justice of the Peace
for Precinct 2.
84. Defendant Alonzo swore under oath to the truthfulness of the contents of those
affidavits.
85. In the absence of the materially false and misleading statements and omissions
contained therein, the arrest warrants were not supported by probable cause. That is, the Justice of
the Peace should not and would not have signed the arrest warrants but for Defendant Alonzo’s
multiple misrepresentations and omissions.
86. Defendant Alonzo, together with Defendants Sharp and Fonseca, all acting under
color of law, executed the arrest warrants at Midland Christian School in front of Plaintiffs’
students, colleagues, parents of students, and the news media that was present in accordance with
Defendant Alonzo’s premeditated plan.
29
87. Defendants Alonzo, Sharp, and Fonseca violated the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments by arresting Plaintiffs without probable cause as the facts within their knowledge
were not reasonably sufficient to support the belief that Plaintiffs had committed an offense. No
reasonable officer would have concluded that the facts supported Plaintiffs’ arrests.
88. The conduct of all individually named Defendants was motivated by malice and/or
involved reckless and callous indifference to Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Defendants engaged
in this conduct intentionally, willfully, and wantonly, and with deliberate indifference to, and
reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
89. At the time of Defendants’ actions described herein, no reasonable officer with the
same information could have believed that their actions were lawful in light of clearly established
law. Therefore, the individually named Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.
Count 2 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Initiation of Criminal Charges Without

Probable Cause and for an Improper Purpose in Violation of
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
91. As described above, Defendants Alonzo, Sharp, and Fonseca, while acting under
the color of law and within the scope of their employment deprived Plaintiffs of their Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights.
92. On February 16, 2022, while acting under color of Texas law, Defendant Alonzo
deprived Plaintiffs or caused them to be deprived of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments by knowingly and recklessly initiating a criminal proceeding against Plaintiffs
without probable cause.
93. Defendant Alonzo pursued felony failure to report with the intent to conceal
charges against Plaintiffs for an improper purpose and specifically out of her resentment of
30
Plaintiffs’ assertions of their constitutional rights and compliance with their professional duties
and federal law.
94. The outcome of the criminal proceedings initiated by Defendant Alonzo was
favorable to Plaintiffs as a grand jury no-billed each of their cases.
95. Defendants Alonzo, Sharp, and Fonseca violated the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments by pursuing felony criminal charges against Plaintiffs without probable cause as the
facts within their knowledge were not reasonably sufficient to support the belief that Plaintiffs had
committed an offense. No reasonable officer would have concluded that the facts supported
charges against Plaintiffs for failure to report with the intent to conceal.
96. The conduct of all individually named Defendants was motivated by malice and/or
involved reckless and callous indifference to Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Defendants engaged
in this conduct intentionally, willfully, and wantonly, and with deliberate indifference to, and
reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
97. At the time of Defendants’ actions described herein, no reasonable officer with the
same information could have believed that their actions were lawful in light of clearly established
law. Therefore, the individually named Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.
Count 3 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Supervisory Liability
99. As described above, Defendant Sharp, while acting under the color of law and
within the scope of her employment, deprived Plaintiffs of their Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights.
31
100. Defendant Sharp facilitated, approved, condoned, consciously turned a blind eye,
or some combination of the foregoing to Defendant Alonzo’s malicious pursuit of criminal charges
and the false arrests of Plaintiffs.
101. Defendant Sharp was aware that no probable cause existed to support felony
criminal charges for failure to report with the intent to conceal. And yet, Defendant Sharp assisted
Defendant Alonzo in drafting affidavits and obtaining arrest warrants, effectuating Plaintiffs’
arrests, and otherwise pursuing criminal charges against Plaintiffs.
102. Defendants Sharp and City of Midland were aware of and on notice of Defendant
Alonzo’s repeated pattern of unconstitutional and unprofessional behavior that had resulted in the
dismissal of numerous other criminal cases in Midland. And in failing to train and supervise
Defendant Alonzo in conducting reliable and trustworthy investigations and in providing reliable
and trustworthy sworn testimony before courts, Defendants Sharp and City of Midland were
deliberately indifferent to the known or obvious fact that constitutional violations would continue
to result from Defendant Alonzo’s misconduct.
103. Defendant Sharp caused the violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
by participating in and condoning the pursuit of felony criminal charges against Plaintiffs without
probable cause as the facts within her knowledge were not reasonably sufficient to support the
belief that Plaintiffs had committed an offense. Defendants Sharp and City of Midland further
caused the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations by being deliberately indifferent to
Defendant Alonzo’s repeated misconduct. No reasonable officer would have concluded that the
facts supported charges against Plaintiffs for failure to report with the intent to conceal.
104. Defendants Sharp and City of Midland’s conduct was motivated by malice and/or
involved reckless and callous indifference to Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Defendants Sharp
32
and City of Midland engaged in this conduct intentionally, willfully, and wantonly, and with
deliberate indifference to, and reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
105. At the time of Defendant Sharp’s actions described herein, no reasonable officer
with the same information could have believed that their actions were lawful in light of clearly
established law. Therefore, Defendant Sharp is not entitled to qualified immunity.
Count 4 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Municipal Liability
107. Municipalities may be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional
deprivations committed pursuant to a policy, custom, or practice of the municipality. Even absent
an officially adopted policy, a custom or practice that is so persistent and widespread that it fairly
represents a municipal policy will support liability against the municipality. A pattern of
unconstitutional conduct may be shown on the part of the municipal employees who are not
policymakers.
108. Defendant City of Midland at all times relevant to this complaint has maintained
policies, customs, or practices that caused and were the moving force behind the violation of
Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
109. The acts and omissions of each individually named Defendant were caused by said
policies, customs, or practices.
110. Defendant City of Midland’s policymakers were deliberately indifferent as to said
policies, customs, or practices.
111. Said policies, customs, and practices included a failure to adequately train and
supervise officers in conducting reliable and trustworthy investigations and in providing reliable
and trustworthy testimony before judicial officers.
33
112. Defendant City of Midland was aware and thereby on notice of a repeated pattern
of unconstitutional and unprofessional behavior on the part of Defendant Alonzo in failing to
conduct reliable and trustworthy investigations and in failing to provide reliable and trustworthy
testimony before judicial officers.
Count 5 State Law Cause of Action: False Arrest & False Imprisonment
114. As described above, Defendants Alonzo, Sharp, and Fonseca, in their individual
capacities willfully detained Plaintiffs, without their consent, and without authority of law.
115. Defendants Alonzo, Sharp, and Fonseca arrested Plaintiffs for the felony offense of
failure to report with the intent to conceal. And Defendants Alonzo, Sharp, and Fonseca did so
lacking probable cause and lacking any reasonable basis to conclude Plaintiffs had committed the
offense.
116. Defendant Alonzo, supported and approved by Defendants Sharp and Fonseca,
obtained arrest warrants by swearing to affidavits that intentionally and recklessly contained
materially false and misleading statements and omissions.
117. The grand jury no-billed the charges against Plaintiffs, underscoring the lack of
probable cause.
118. Defendants Alonzo, Sharp, and Fonseca engaged in this conduct intentionally,
willfully, and wantonly, and with deliberate indifference to, and reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’
constitutional rights. Defendants Alonzo, Sharp, and Fonseca did not act in good faith.
Count 6 State Law Cause of Action: Malicious Prosecution
34
120. As described above, Defendants Alonzo, Sharp, and Fonseca, in their individual
capacities commenced and continued criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs, for crimes for which
they were innocent, lacking probable cause to do so, and doing so while harboring malice towards
them.
121. Defendants Alonzo, Sharp, and Fonseca engaged in this conduct intentionally,
willfully, and wantonly, and with deliberate indifference to, and reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’
constitutional rights. Defendants Alonzo, Sharp, and Fonseca did not act in good faith.
DAMAGES
122. Defendants’ actions, both jointly and severally, deprived Plaintiffs of their
protected rights under the United States Constitution, federal law, and Texas state law.
123. As a proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have suffered the
deprivation of liberty, reputational harm, public humiliation, distress, pain, and suffering for which
they are entitled to compensatory damages, including damages for mental and emotional distress.
124. Additionally, Defendants Alonzo, Sharp, and Fonseca acted with malice and with
intentional disregard for Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights for which Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive
damages. Such damages would assist in deterring and preventing similar conduct in the future.
ATTORNEYS’ FEES
125. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and
costs, including expert fees.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
126. Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all claims for which the law provides a
right to a jury trial. The jury fee is tendered herewith.
[Conclusion, prayer, and signatures on following page . . . ]
35
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
127. Plaintiffs respectfully pray that all Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein,
and that Plaintiffs have judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory,
punitive, and emotional distress damages against all individual Defendants, pre-and post-judgment
interest, attorneys’ fees and costs of court, including expert fees, and all further relief, both legal
and equitable, as to which Plaintiffs show themselves justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
RUSTY HARDIN & ASSOCIATES, LLP
By: /s/ Russell Hardin, Jr.

RUSSELL HARDIN, JR.
Attorney in Charge
Texas State Bar No. 08972800
JOHN MACVANE
AISHA DENNIS
5 Houston Center
1401 McKinney Street, Suite 2250
Houston, Texas 77010
(713) 652-9000 phone
(713) 652-9800 fax
Email: rhardin@rustyhardin.com
Email: jmacvane@rustyhardin.com
Email: adennis@rustyhardin.com
LAW OFFICES OF JEFF PARRAS
By: /s/ Jeffrey Parras

JEFFREY PARRAS
908 West Wall Street
Midland, Texas 79701
(432) 687-1606 phone
(432) 687-1607 fax
Email: jparras@parraslaw.net
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
36

Midland Christian Educators File Civil Rights Lawsuit Against City of Midland, Police Department

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Midland Christian Educators File Civil Rights Lawsuit Against City of Midland, Police Department

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Midland Christian Educators File Civil Rights Lawsuit Against City of Midland, Police Department

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Case 7:22-cv-00185 Document 1 Filed 08/30/22 Page 1 of 36

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JARED LEE, DANA ELLIS, §

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

enforcement authorities who—in a remarkable abuse of power—arrested these educators as

had known all along: no probable cause of a crime existed.

7. Nonetheless, the alleged sophomore perpetrator was punished in accordance with

tolerated in the future.

butt,” the freshman’s “anus was penetrated far up with a bat.”

occurred—to the police.

were offended—indeed, outraged—that Plaintiffs dared to investigate an unsubstantiated rumor at

11. Blinded by this unjustified anger, Defendant Alonzo spearheaded a tunnel-visioned

facts supporting Plaintiffs’ reasonable—and correct—belief that no reportable abuse occurred.

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

13. In an extreme and unreasonable abuse of power, Defendant Alonzo—supported by

arrest warrant affidavits that contained deliberate—or, alternatively, reckless—falsehoods and

premeditated to publicly humiliate and stigmatize the career educators.

Five, and the district attorney dismissed the unfounded charges.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1999. His two daughters are currently students at the school.

are currently attending the school.

Christian School in 2013.

22. Plaintiff Gregory McClendon is a resident of Midland County, Texas. He is the

for twenty-two years.

24. Defendant City of Midland is a municipal corporation organized under the

Midland-Odessa Division. The Midland Police Department (“MPD”) is a department operated by

manner permitted by law.

her employment. Defendant Alonzo is sued in her individual capacity.

26. Defendant Rosemary Sharp is employed by the City of Midland as an MPD

scope of her employment. Defendant Sharp is sued in her individual capacity.

his employment. Defendant Fonseca is sued in his individual capacity.

school. The chain of hearsay was as follows:

Chain of Hearsay from Initial Report

Annonymous ninth-grade girl (not on boys' baseball team or

Mother of annonymous ninth-grade girl

alleged victim involved had missed school) in the hearsay account.

investigation because her son was on the baseball team.

 Student Witnesses Explain What Actually Occurred—Horseplay Involving a Bat.

penetrate the freshman’s anus.

school’s highest punishment short of expulsion.

 A Parent Reports an Inaccurate, Exaggerated Rumor to Police.

 The Plaintiffs Attempt to Comply with the Police Investigation.

anus but did not go inside.”

evidence that the bat penetrated anyone’s anus.

sophomore’s parents, they too would be arrested—adding “I don’t give a fuck.”

Defendant Alonzo reluctantly acquiesce.

as visible and as humiliating as possible.

to produce the documentation to her by noon the following Monday.

 The Defendants Search the School.

warrant contained material misrepresentations and omissions.

including photographs of several staff members entirely unrelated to the investigation.

51. Defendant Alonzo then conducted voluntary interviews of Plaintiffs McClendon,

Alonzo, as instructed, to schedule his voluntary interview for a later date.

billed the charges.

 The Defendants Obtain Unconstitutional Warrant Affidavits.

56. Egregiously, to obtain felony warrants, Defendant Alonzo—with the support,

completely out of whole cloth.

had been out sick—were intending to do so.

report as they are referenced in her own investigative report.

omitted them in her affidavits.

Alonzo’s investigative report, and other contemporaneous recordings.

and that no trauma was observed.

discovered during MPD’s investigation.