Nellis v. Williamson County: A Federal Civil Rights Case Is Filed

The filing, in its own terms

The complaint was filed on 21 September 2026 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and assigned case number 1:26-cv-02592. The plaintiff is LeRoy Nellis. The defendants named in the caption are Williamson County, Texas and eighteen individuals — Larry R. Davis, Joshua D. Ransom, Rachael C. Lentz, Luke Cadriel, Ronald W. Barnett, Jamie P. Brooks, Bruce E. Young Jr., Dianna Y. O'Brien, Christopher T. Watts, Jorge Alvarado, Rickey K. Ladet, Aaron Li, Matthew E. Smith, Matthew Ivie, Rebecca M. Rodriguez, William T. Callahan and FNU Karg — together with John Does 1–10.

The docket classifies the nature of the suit as Civil Rights: Other and the cause of action as 42 U.S.C. § 1981. A jury trial was demanded by the plaintiff on the day of filing.

What § 1981 covers, and what it does not

Section 1981 is the post-Civil War statute guaranteeing all persons the same right to make and enforce contracts as white citizens. In practice it is pleaded where a plaintiff says a public body or its employees interfered with his ability to make, perform or benefit from a contractual relationship — employment, a business, a service. It is not the same claim as § 1983, which reaches deprivations of constitutional rights by someone acting under colour of law. A case pleaded under § 1981 alone therefore signals what the plaintiff intends to prove: not simply that a right was violated, but that a contract or economic relationship was interfered with because of race.

The two orders filed with it

Alongside the complaint the plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis — a request to file without paying the filing fee, which a court grants only after reviewing the applicant's financial affidavit. That motion is marked on the docket as pending. Under the rules, the complaint is not served on the defendants until the court rules on it; if the fee is waived, the court also screens the complaint before service and may dismiss it if it fails to state a claim.

The same day, a standing order dated 3 August 2026 referred the case to Magistrate Judge Dustin M. Howell, signed by Judge Xavier Rodriguez. The case itself is assigned to Judge Rodriguez, with Judge Howell handling the referred matters. In the Western District that referral is routine and covers pre-trial management; it does not decide the merits.

What the docket does not say

A docket records documents, not allegations. Nothing in the entries above describes the conduct complained of, the relief sought, or the evidence attached to the complaint — the docket confirms only that a complaint and civil cover sheet were filed, that a jury was demanded, that the fee is unpaid pending review, and that a magistrate has been assigned. Until the complaint is screened, served and answered, no court has made any finding about any defendant, and the defendants have not responded.

What happens next

Four things, in order, and each has a public trace: a ruling on the in forma pauperis motion; if granted, service of process on the named defendants; an answer or a motion to dismiss from each; and only then a scheduling order setting discovery and a trial date. The docket is the place to watch, and it is public.

The filings behind these entries sit alongside the wider record collected on this site — the evidentiary record, the 2019–2025 timeline, and the county-level records indexed at All Posts. The docket number to follow is 1:26-cv-02592.