Nellis v. Williamson County, Texas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

LE ROY NELLIS II, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. __________ § WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS; § WILLIAMSON COUNTY SHERIFF, § in official and individual capacities; § KATHLEEN A. POKLUDA; § DR. GHULAM M. KHAN; § JAMIE P. BROOKS; § EMT LARRY R. DAVIS; § EMT JOSHUA D. RANSOM; § SUPERVISOR REBECCA RODREGUEZ; § SUPERVISOR WILLIAM T. CALLAHAN; § SUPERVISOR BRUCE E. YOUNG JR.; § JOHN/JANE DOE JAIL ADMINISTRATORS; § JOHN/JANE DOE MEDICAL STAFF; § SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; § NCIC INMATE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., § § Defendants. §

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS (42 U.S.C. § 1983) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This action arises from unconstitutional pretrial punishment, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, sexual abuse, coercive restraint, denial of protective custody, denial of religious exercise, compelled surveillance, and retaliation imposed upon Plaintiff while confined as a pretrial detainee in the Williamson County Jail.

2. Plaintiff was presumed innocent at all relevant times and had not been convicted of any crime during the period of Defendants’ conduct.

3. Defendants denied and delayed emergency medical care during an objectively serious medical crisis, knowingly substituting unlicensed or improperly supervised personnel for licensed physician oversight in emergency medical decision-making, directly and proximately causing permanent neurological injury, metabolic disease, disability, and loss of bodily function.

4. Defendants subjected Plaintiff to prolonged isolation, coercive restraints, sexual abuse, humiliation, and punishment unrelated to any legitimate governmental objective.

5. Defendants compelled Plaintiff and his family to submit to AI-enabled surveillance of communications as a mandatory condition of confinement, without voluntary consent, judicial authorization, or meaningful opt-out.

6. Defendants’ acts and omissions were not isolated incidents but part of a continuous course of conduct involving repeated medical neglect, abuse, surveillance, and retaliation, resulting in cumulative physical, neurological, psychological, and reputational harm.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

8. This action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

9. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

III. PARTIES

10. Plaintiff LeRoy Nellis II is a resident of Texas and was a pretrial detainee in the Williamson County Jail from January 3, 2024 through July 2025.

11. Defendant Williamson County, Texas is a municipal entity responsible for jail operations, medical care, staffing, policies, and vendor contracting.

12. Defendant Williamson County Sheriff is the final policymaker for jail operations, supervision, training, discipline, and implementation of jail policies.

13. Defendant Kathleen A. Pokluda acted in a supervisory custodial and/or medical administrative capacity despite lacking proper licensure and lawful authority.

14. Defendants Ghulam M. Khan and Jamie P. Brooks were presented as medical supervisors or decision-makers despite the absence of valid physician licensure or lawful scope of practice during relevant periods.

15. Defendants Larry R. Davis and Joshua D. Ransom were EMTs exercising medical authority under color of state law.

16. Defendants Ramirez, Callahan, and Young were supervisory jail officials who denied Plaintiff requests for protection and failed to intervene despite known risks.

17. Defendants Securus Technologies, Inc. and NCIC Inmate Communications, Inc. operated exclusive inmate communications systems pursuant to contract with Williamson County and acted under color of state law by exercising custodial control over detainee communications, including interception, recording, retention, interruption, and automated or AI-assisted analysis as a mandatory condition of confinement.

18. John/Jane Doe Defendants include jail administrators, officers, and medical staff whose identities are presently unknown.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Pretrial Status

19. Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee constitutionally protected from punishment and conditions not reasonably related to legitimate governmental objectives.

B. Medical Emergency and Deliberate Indifference

20. Shortly after intake, Plaintiff experienced gross hematuria, neurological symptoms, systemic infection, and metabolic instability.

21. Despite being a Type 2 diabetic, Plaintiff was forcibly administered insulin without adequate evaluation, informed consent, documented medical necessity, or physician oversight.

22. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff developed permanent insulin-dependent metabolic disease consistent with autoimmune or insulin-deficient diabetes requiring lifelong medical management.

23. Plaintiff urinated visible blood for multiple days and repeatedly requested emergency medical care and hospital transport.

24. There was no functional access to emergency services, including 911.

25. EMT Defendants denied hospital transport despite obvious signs of medical emergency.

26. Medical decisions were made by EMTs and non-physician personnel without timely or direct involvement of a licensed physician.

27. Plaintiff suffered permanent neurological injury, including loss of vision, diffuse nerve damage, chronic pain, disability, and loss of normal bodily function as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions.

C. Prolonged Isolation, Coercive Restraint, and Religious Abuse

28. Plaintiff was subjected to prolonged solitary confinement totaling approximately 326 days.

29. On or about August 13, 2024, Plaintiff was placed in isolation in multiple housing areas and restrained in a chair for approximately 2.5 hours for refusing to surrender his Bible.

30. The restraint and confiscation of religious materials served no legitimate security purpose and were punitive and coercive.

D. Sexual Abuse and Failure to Protect

31. Plaintiff was filmed while nude and exposed during custody.

32. Plaintiff was subjected to sexual abuse and sexual misconduct by staff.

33. Plaintiff requested protective custody on at least three occasions from supervisory staff, all of which were denied.

34. Defendants knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff.

E. Compelled Surveillance and Attorney–Client Interference

35. Defendants required Plaintiff to use exclusive communications systems operated by Securus and NCIC as the sole means of contact with family and the outside world.

36. Use of these systems was mandatory; consent was coerced by incarceration.

37. Plaintiff’s family members—non-incarcerated civilians—were required to use proprietary applications as the sole means of communication, subjecting them to recording, retention, and surveillance without voluntary consent or meaningful alternatives.

38. The systems lacked reliable safeguards to exclude attorney–client communications from interception, recording, retention, or analysis.

39. Defendants knew or should have known that these systems created a substantial risk of intrusion into privileged communications, interfering with Plaintiff’s Sixth Amendment right to confidential consultation with counsel.

F. Stigmatization and Reputational Harm

40. Defendants, acting under color of state law, publicly labeled or allowed Plaintiff to be characterized as a sex offender or pedophile on multiple occasions despite the absence of any conviction, adjudication, or lawful basis.

41. As a foreseeable result, Plaintiff lost both of his homes, suffered the breakdown of his relationship with his child, experienced widespread social ostracization, and lost his established social and professional network and online presence.

42. These actions imposed a stigma accompanied by concrete deprivations of liberty and property interests, violating Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

G. County Policy and Custom

43. Williamson County maintained policies and customs of understaffing, unlicensed medical supervision, ignored grievances, retaliatory isolation, and integration of surveillance technologies without constitutional safeguards.

44. Defendants were on notice of these practices through grievances, requests, injuries, and prior incidents and failed to act.

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I – Fourteenth Amendment Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs

45. Defendants knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm.

COUNT II – Fourteenth Amendment Unconstitutional Pretrial Punishment

46. Defendants imposed punitive conditions unrelated to legitimate governmental objectives.

COUNT III – Fourteenth Amendment Failure to Protect

47. Defendants failed to protect Plaintiff from known risks of physical and sexual harm.

COUNT IV – First Amendment Free Exercise of Religion

48. Defendants punished Plaintiff for refusing to surrender his Bible.

COUNT V – Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments Unlawful Surveillance and Data Collection

49. Defendants compelled unconstitutional interception, retention, and analysis of communications.

COUNT VI – Sixth Amendment Interference with Attorney–Client Communications

50. Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s right to confidential consultation with counsel.

COUNT VII – Municipal Liability (Monell)

51. Williamson County’s policies, customs, and deliberate indifference were the moving force behind the constitutional violations.

VI. DAMAGES

52. Plaintiff suffered physical injury, permanent neurological and functional disability, loss of vision, chronic pain, insulin-dependent metabolic disease requiring lifelong medical management, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), severe emotional distress, reputational injury, social stigmatization, loss of housing, destruction of family relationships, loss of professional standing and social influence, diminished future earning capacity, loss of dignity, and a severely reduced quality of life.

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant:

A. Compensatory damages;

B. Punitive damages against individual Defendants;

C. Declaratory relief declaring Defendants’ conduct unconstitutional;

D. Injunctive relief prohibiting ongoing unconstitutional practices;

E. Injunctive relief requiring removal from custodial or medical roles any individual found to have operated without proper licensure or in deliberate indifference, and prohibiting paid administrative leave in lieu of removal;

F. Referral of findings to appropriate licensing and regulatory authorities;

G. Corrective policies, training, and independent oversight;

H. A public corrective statement by the Williamson County Sheriff’s Office;

I. Permanent injunction prohibiting false or stigmatizing statements absent conviction;

J. Permanent injunction prohibiting retaliation, surveillance, or digital interference without valid judicial authorization;

K. Permanent injunction prohibiting direct contact with Plaintiff outside lawful process;

L. Costs and attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988;

M. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

VIII. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

IX. VERIFICATION

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

__________________________________ LeRoy Nellis II, Pro Se Date: ___________