Nellis v. Isolde Amador

CAUSE NO. __________

LE ROY NELLIS, § Plaintiff, § § v. § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § ISOLDE AMADOR, § OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS Defendant. § § ___ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION

I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

1. Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level 2 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

II. PARTIES

2. Plaintiff, LeRoy Nellis (“Plaintiff”), is an individual residing in Travis County, Texas.

3. Defendant, Isolde Amador (“Defendant”), is an individual who may be served with process at her residence or wherever she may be found.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court.

5. Venue is proper in Travis County, Texas under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 15.002(a) because Defendant resided in Travis County, Texas at the time the acts and omissions giving rise to these claims occurred and currently resides in Travis County, and because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to these claims occurred in Travis County.

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

6. This case arises from a continuing and repeatable course of conduct beginning in or about 2019, recurring through 2020, and continuing thereafter, in which Defendant made multiple accusations against Plaintiff that resulted in criminal investigations or charges.

7. At least four (4) separate accusations initiated or caused by Defendant were dismissed, including matters arising in 2019, 2020, and two subsequent incidents, each due to insufficient evidence to proceed, lack of substantiation, or failure to meet prosecutorial standards.

8. None of these accusations resulted in an adjudication of guilt, sustained prosecution, or judicial findings adverse to Plaintiff. Each dismissal constituted a favorable termination as to Plaintiff.

9. As a result of these repeated dismissals, Defendant knew or should have known that her accusations were unreliable, unsupported, and unlikely to be substantiated, yet also knew that repeating them would predictably trigger arrest, restrictive bond conditions, loss of custody or visitation, reputational harm, and prolonged separation from Plaintiff’s child.

10. Despite this knowledge, Defendant continued to repeat substantially similar accusations, demonstrating reckless disregard for the truth, misuse of governmental processes, and conscious indifference to the foreseeable harm inflicted on Plaintiff.

11. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s repeated conduct, Plaintiff was subjected to multiple periods of separation from his daughter, including a continuous period exceeding two (2) years, causing permanent disruption of the parent–child bond and loss of irreplaceable time, companionship, care, and involvement in his child’s life.

12. Defendant knew or should have known that initiating accusations would automatically and foreseeably result in restrictions on custody and visitation and would inflict severe emotional harm on Plaintiff and his daughter.

13. During the most recent episode of state action triggered by Defendant’s accusations, Plaintiff was subjected to pretrial detention and prolonged criminal proceedings without probable cause.

14. While detained, Plaintiff suffered physical injury and deterioration of health, including but not limited to physical harm associated with prolonged confinement, exacerbation of existing medical conditions, new injuries and health complications arising during detention, and ongoing physical symptoms that persist beyond release.

15. Defendant knew or was substantially certain that causing Plaintiff’s incarceration would expose him to harsh confinement conditions, medical risk, and bodily harm, yet proceeded regardless.

16. Defendant failed to take any reasonable steps to correct, retract, or clarify her accusations during any of these episodes, despite knowing the consequences from prior dismissals.

17. Plaintiff and Defendant are subject to a valid and enforceable divorce decree and parenting order that governs Plaintiff’s possession of and access to his daughter.

18. On multiple occasions, Defendant knowingly and intentionally violated the divorce decree by refusing to allow Plaintiff court-ordered possession and visitation, despite the absence of any lawful modification, suspension, or protective order barring Plaintiff’s access.

19. Defendant’s violations of the divorce decree were willful, without legal justification, and part of a pattern of interference that compounded the harm caused by Defendant’s false accusations and misuse of governmental processes.

20. Defendant’s conduct wrongfully deprived Plaintiff of court-ordered time with his daughter and further disrupted the parent–child relationship.

SEVERITY AND NATURE OF FALSE ACCUSATIONS

21. Among the accusations made or caused by Defendant were allegations of sexual abuse of a child, including allegations that Plaintiff sexually molested his own daughter.

22. These allegations were among the most severe accusations that can be made against a parent and carried catastrophic legal, personal, and familial consequences.

23. Defendant’s accusations exposed Plaintiff to potential prosecution for aggravated sexual assault of a child, an offense carrying the possibility of life imprisonment.

24. The allegations were investigated and did not result in substantiated findings, adjudication of guilt, or sustained prosecution.

25. Plaintiff’s daughter has stated that she does not recall the alleged conduct and that the alleged abuse did not occur, underscoring the absence of evidentiary support for Defendant’s accusations.

26. Defendant knew or should have known that making such allegations would: a. Irreparably damage Plaintiff’s reputation; b. Sever or severely impair the parent–child relationship; c. Subject Plaintiff to extreme psychological distress; d. Expose Plaintiff to lifelong incarceration risk; and e. Inflict emotional harm on the child by introducing false and traumatic narratives.

27. Despite the known severity and foreseeable harm, Defendant made or repeated these allegations with reckless disregard for the truth and with conscious indifference to the consequences.

V. CONTINUING TORT, TOLLING, AND PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT

28. Defendant’s actions constitute a continuing tort consisting of repeated, discrete wrongful acts that collectively caused cumulative and compounding harm to Plaintiff.

29. Plaintiff’s injuries were not complete at a single point in time but accrued and intensified with each recurrence of Defendant’s conduct.

30. Any applicable limitations periods are tolled under the doctrines of continuing tort and equitable tolling, as Defendant repeatedly renewed the same conduct following prior dismissals, causing new and independent injuries with each recurrence.

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I — MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (LIMITED TO ACTIONS TERMINATING IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR)

31. Defendant initiated or procured the initiation of criminal proceedings against Plaintiff.

32. Defendant lacked probable cause for such proceedings.

33. Defendant acted with malice, defined as an improper purpose or reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights.

34. The criminal proceedings referenced herein terminated in Plaintiff’s favor, including dismissal for insufficient evidence, or will terminate in Plaintiff’s favor.

35. Plaintiff suffered damages including loss of liberty, emotional distress, legal expenses, and reputational harm.

COUNT II — ABUSE OF PROCESS

36. Defendant used legal and governmental processes for purposes other than those for which they were designed, including punishment, coercion, retaliation, and leverage.

37. Defendant’s misuse of process caused Plaintiff specific injury, including deprivation of liberty, loss of familial relationships, and severe emotional distress.

COUNT III — DEFAMATION (LIBEL AND SLANDER)

38. Defendant made false statements of fact concerning Plaintiff to third parties.

39. Defendant knew the statements were false or made them with reckless disregard for their truth.

40. The statements were defamatory per se or caused actual reputational harm.

COUNT IV — INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

41. Defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous and exceeded all bounds of decency tolerated in a civilized society.

42. Defendant intended to cause emotional distress or acted with reckless disregard of the probability of causing such distress.

43. Plaintiff suffered severe and prolonged emotional distress as a result.

COUNT V — CIVIL CONSPIRACY

44. Defendant acted in concert with others, known or unknown, to accomplish unlawful acts or lawful acts by unlawful means.

45. Plaintiff was damaged as a result of acts taken in furtherance of the conspiracy.

COUNT VI — INTERFERENCE WITH PARENT–CHILD RELATIONSHIP

46. Defendant’s conduct directly and foreseeably interfered with Plaintiff’s relationship with his daughter, including loss of custody, loss of visitation, and prolonged separation.

47. Defendant acted intentionally or with conscious disregard of the substantial certainty that Plaintiff would lose access to his child.

48. Plaintiff suffered damages including emotional distress, loss of companionship, loss of society, and permanent disruption of the parent–child bond.

COUNT VII — TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH COURT-ORDERED POSSESSION AND ACCESS

49. Defendant knowingly interfered with Plaintiff’s rights under a valid court order by intentionally denying court-ordered possession and access to Plaintiff’s daughter.

50. Defendant’s interference was willful, malicious, and without legal justification, and exceeded mere noncompliance with a court order.

51. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff suffered damages including loss of court-ordered parent–child time, emotional distress, and further erosion of the parent–child relationship.

VII. DAMAGES

52. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s repeated and continuing misconduct, Plaintiff has suffered actual, consequential, and exemplary damages, including but not limited to:

a. Loss of liberty and freedom due to detention and repeated government intervention; b. Loss of time, companionship, care, and relationship with Plaintiff’s daughter since 2019, including a continuous period exceeding two (2) years; c. Permanent disruption of the parent–child bond; d. Mental anguish, emotional distress, anxiety, and trauma; e. Physical injury and deterioration of health arising during detention, past and future; f. Pain and suffering, past and future; g. Medical expenses, past and future; h. Loss of normal life activities and enjoyment of life; i. Reputational injury; j. Financial losses, including legal expenses and lost opportunities; k. Severe reputational harm arising from false allegations of child sexual abuse; l. Extreme mental anguish associated with facing accusations carrying a potential life sentence; m. Psychological trauma arising from the destruction of Plaintiff’s parental identity and standing; n. Emotional distress caused by contamination of the parent–child relationship through false sexual-abuse narratives; o. Ongoing fear, anxiety, and stress associated with the risk of wrongful lifelong incarceration.

VIII. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

53. Defendant’s conduct was willful, malicious, fraudulent, and carried out with conscious indifference to Plaintiff’s rights.

54. Defendant’s conduct is especially egregious because it involved knowingly or recklessly making false allegations of child sexual abuse—among the most inflammatory accusations possible—with full awareness of the potential for life imprisonment and permanent destruction of familial bonds.

IX. JURY DEMAND

55. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

X. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

56. All conditions precedent to Plaintiff’s claims have occurred or have been waived.

XI. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant be cited to appear and answer, and that upon final trial, Plaintiff have judgment against Defendant for actual and exemplary damages, costs of court, pre- and post-judgment interest, and all other relief, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

LeRoy Nellis Plaintiff, Pro Se Phone: Email: