MISD Lawsuit

Case 7:20-cv-00242 Document 2 Filed 10/16/20 Page 1 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MIDLAND DIVISION
MEGAN MARIE McMURRY, Individually §

and a/n/f of J.M., and ADAM SETH §
McMURRY, Individually and a/n/f of §
J.M., §
Plaintiffs, §
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:20-cv-00242
§
MIDLAND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL §
DISTRICT, ALEXANDRA WEAVER §
and KEVIN BRUNNER, Defendants. §
§
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Megan Marie McMurry, Individually and a/n/f of J.M., and Adam Seth McMurry,
Individually and a/n/f of J.M. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”), bring
this, their Original Complaint against Midland Independent School District (hereinafter
referred to as the “Midland ISD”), Alexandra Weaver, Individually, and Kevin Brunner,
Individually (collectively termed the “Defendants”), and in support thereof, Plaintiffs
would respectfully show the following:
I. Nature & Purpose of the Action
1. Plaintiffs bring claims against Defendants for violations of federal law pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution arising out of their acts and omissions occurring on and after October 26,
2018. They further bring forth state claims pursuant to the common law claims of breach
of contract, defamation, and invasion of privacy.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 1

II. Jurisdiction
2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1331
and 1343 because the matters in controversy arise under the United States Constitution
and laws of the United States of America.
3. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over various state and
common law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
III. Venue
4. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue is proper before this Court because the events
and omissions giving rise to the Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the Western District of
Texas.
IV. Parties
5. Megan Marie McMurry and Adam Seth McMurry are citizens of the State of
Texas and currently reside in McKinney, Texas.
6. J.M., a Minor Child, is the daughter of Megan Marie McMurry and Adam
Seth McMurry who resides with her parents in McKinney, Texas.
7. Defendant Midland Independent School District is a school district
organized under the laws of the State of Texas and responsible for the care, management
and control of all public school business within its jurisdiction and also for the acts and
omissions of its staff, such as Alexandra Weaver and Kevin Brunner. It can be served by
and through their Interim Superintendent, Dr. Ann Dixon, at 615 W. Missouri Avenue,
Midland, Texas 79701, or through Rick Davis, President of its Board of Trustees, at 615
W. Missouri Avenue, Midland, Texas 79701.

8. Defendant Alexandra Weaver is an individual who can be served with
process at
9. Defendant Kevin Brunner is an individual who can be served with process
at the Midland Independent School District Police Department, 615 W. Missouri
Avenue, Midland, Texas 79701.
V. Background Facts
10. Megan McMurry and Adam “Seth” McMurry are husband and wife.
Between 2017 and 2018, Megan McMurry worked at Midland ISD as a special education
behavior teacher and had an unblemished service record while serving in that role at the
school district’s Abell Junior High School campus. Ms. McMurry has also had a successful
career in special education prior to Midland ISD, serving as a consultant in her field in
various international schools around the world. Adam Seth McMurry works in the oil and
gas industry. He served in the Mississippi Army National Guard for more than 20 years
before transferring to the U.S. Army Reserves in March 2020.
11. The McMurrys have two children—J.M. and C.M.—who do well
academically and are described as being mature for their ages. The family has at various
times lived overseas when Ms. McMurry worked in special education consulting. In
2018, Mr. McMurry was deployed to Kuwait and then to Syria with the Mississippi Army
National Guard. Despite his being out of the country, Mr. McMurry was stationed in a
location that offered reliable cellular and internet service. Mr. McMurry was able to
maintain continuous contact with his family by text, email, and Facetime, and he
remained involved in his children’s care each day as he regularly contacted them to discuss
family business, school work, and their daily routines.

12. The McMurrys lived on the third floor of an upscale apartment building in
Midland, Texas that was gated and had off-duty police officers who lived within the
compound. In the 2018-2019 school year, C.M., who was 12 at the time, attended Abell
Junior High School and maintained a perfect attendance record. Meanwhile, J.M., who
was 14 at the time, was homeschooled online through K-12’s Texas Virtual Academy run
by the Hallsville Independent School District, which required her to stay home in the
apartment each day to perform her online instruction. Therefore, at the time of the
incident at issue in this case, J.M. was not a student of Midland ISD. When she was not in
school, J.M. worked part-time as a babysitter for many families, including neighbors, and
made good money in this role. Both children knew how to perform household chores and
generally take care of themselves when their parents were not home. In addition, they
considered themselves fully capable of attending to emergencies if any parent were gone
because they had cell phones to contact their parents and emergency responders, had
access to adult neighbors who were friends of the family, kept two large dogs to protect
them, and knew how to administer CPR.
13. In the summer of 2018, Ms. McMurry began to explore a job offer to teach
at an international school in Kuwait where the McMurrys had lived before. In furtherance
of that, Ms. McMurry scheduled a trip to Kuwait to visit the school to determine if she
wanted to take the position and made travel arrangements for the period of time between
October 25, 2018 and October 30, 2018. Though the McMurry children were invited to
accompany their mother, they told their parents that they preferred to stay in Midland.
Because Ms. McMurry sent an email to the junior high school staff about her trip, it was
common knowledge at the school that she would be out of the country for several days.
School district employees also knew that Mr. McMurry was deployed overseas at this time.

14. Though the McMurrys did not have relatives in the Midland area, they were
friends with neighbors Gabriel and Vanessa Vallejos. The two families would socialize on
occasion, and J.M. babysat their son after school and on weekends until they got home
from work. Ms. McMurry made arrangements for Mr. and Ms. Vallejos to care for the
children in her absence and lined up several colleagues at work to drive C.M. to and from
school. Mr. and Ms. Vallejos were given full responsibility for the McMurry children when
Ms. McMurry was gone as had been the case in other instances when they watched the
McMurry children while Ms. McMurry had to go out of town. It was agreed that the
Vallejoses would take the children to a football game one evening and go out for dinner a
few times. The McMurrys made sure their children understood they could have no visitors
while Ms. McMurry was gone and that Mr. McMurry would be readily accessible by phone
when Ms. McMurry was traveling by air. The McMurrys felt confident that their children
were in good hands when Ms. McMurry left for her trip.
15. In the afternoon of October 25, 2018, Ms. McMurry drove to Dallas, Texas
to catch her plane for the long trip. Meanwhile, J.M. finished her studies and babysat the
Vallejoses’ son after he came home by school bus. One of Ms. McMurry’s colleagues, a
school counselor, drove C.M. home from school. In the early evening, the McMurry
children and the Vallejoses mutually agreed that the children would simply stay in their
own apartment that night because they could sleep in their own beds and watch their dogs
instead of sleeping on couches in the Vallejoses’ apartment. Ms. Vallejos testified at trial
that she felt confident the children were safe to sleep overnight in the McMurry’s
apartment.

16. The incident at issue in this case occurred on October 26, 2018. In 2018,
Alexandra Weaver served as a police officer for the Midland ISD Police Department along
with her supervisor, Kevin Brunner. Ms. Weaver was stationed at Abell Junior
High School and knew Megan McMurry and her children. A school counselor—one of the
individuals with whom Ms. McMurry arranged to take C.M. to and from school during her
absence—contacted Officer Weaver by text to say she was sick and to ask if Officer Weaver
could take C.M. to school knowing that she lived near the McMurrys. (The counselor
ended up getting another co-worker, Ms. McMurry’s teaching aide, to take C.M. to school
that morning.)
17. This fateful text triggered a series of events that would turn the lives of the
McMurrys upside-down because of Officer Weaver’s excessively eager investigation into
the McMurry children out of alleged “concern” for their welfare. Eventually, the
investigation would lead to a seizure of the McMurry’s daughter by the Midland ISD police
in violation of state law and the pursuit by the school district police officers of
abandonment charges against Ms. McMurry—a complaint that would later lead to a
criminal trial in Midland, Texas ending with Ms. McMurry’s acquittal by a jury.
18. According to Officer Weaver’s police report, the catalyst of the investigation
happened when the school counselor allegedly told Ms. Weaver that the children were left
at home alone for the weekend while Ms. McMurry was gone. Upon information and
belief, Officer Weaver misrepresented the content of this communication in her police
report because the school counselor would later testify at Ms. McMurry’s criminal trial
that she had no personal knowledge of Ms. McMurry’s caretaking arrangements in her
absence, that she only heard that the children would be cared for by neighbors and that is
all she really knew.

19. Officer Weaver then contacted Officer Brunner, telling him (according to his
police report about the incident) that Officer Weaver informed him that she had learned
that Ms. McMurry had left her children home alone and had in fact been told of this fact
by another (i.e., by the school counselor who said she was sick).
20. Before trying to contact Mr. McMurry, the Vallejoses, or J.M. herself, who
was not even a student of the school district at this time, Officer Weaver and Officer
Brunner questioned Ms. McMurry’s teaching aide at the school about Ms. McMurry’s trip.
Though the aide later testified at Ms. McMurry’s trial that she had no personal knowledge
of Ms. McMurry’s caretaking arrangements and that she did not believe Ms. McMurry had
neglected her children, she told the officers in their meeting at the school that she “had
heard” that a neighbor was “checking on” the children, which Officer Weaver said in her
police report had “implied” that the children were not going to be residing with adults in
this interim. Significantly, the employee told the officers that she had taken C.M. to school
that morning and so it was abundantly clear to them that J.M., who was not enrolled in
the school district, was the only child back at the McMurry’s apartment on this morning
doing her online, homeschool lessons.
21. What is notable about this interview is that the police officers questioned
the teaching aide in tandem with two employees of the school district—the junior high
school principal at the time and an assistant principal. Thus, the school district
administration took upon itself to assist the two police officers in their investigation of an
alleged complaint about child abandonment, assuming one had been made in the
first place by this point in time.
22. Officer Weaver and Officer Brunner decided to conduct their own
offcampus welfare check on J.M. without contacting another law enforcement agency to

handle the matter, setting in motion a series of events during which they flagrantly
violated the rights of J.M. and her parents and which made clear they were agitating for
the criminal prosecution of Ms. McMurry for abandonment of children. It should be noted
that Officer Weaver had already met and knew J.M. from the middle school where the
young girl attended school the previous school year and worked as an office assistant and
was cognizant that J.M. was not a student of Midland ISD, that she was homeschooled,
and that she had typically stayed at home alone each day since the beginning of the school
semester as Ms. McMurry went to work at the school district.
23. The officers traveled to the McMurry apartment and prompted an assistant
manager of the apartment complex to knock on the door. The manager testified at Ms.
McMurry’s criminal trial that the police officer’s request made her feel uncomfortable.
The officers kept out of sight of the door peephole when the employee knocked. When
J.M. opened the door, the officers appeared and asked about the whereabouts of Ms.
McMurry. Mr. Brunner told J.M. that they were going to talk to her somewhere else and
that she needed to go back inside to change into warmer clothing. Startled by the
appearance of the officers at her doorstep, J.M. became upset and began to cry and she
would continue to cry for the next several hours as these events unfolded.
24. During this brief exchange, no officer asked for J.M.’s consent to talk to her,
nor did they make clear she could refuse their entry into the apartment or her removal by
them from the premises. While standing at the threshold of the apartment door, neither
officer asked J.M. detailed questions about her caretaking arrangements or about any
matter that might enable them to assess any risk she might face. The presence of the police
in their regalia on this date signaled to J.M. that her liberty of movement was restricted

and restrained and that she was compelled to accompany them to wherever they planned
to take her.
25. Officer Weaver followed J.M. in the apartment, and as J.M. changed in a
bedroom at the officer’s request, J.M. could see from a partially open door that Officer
Weaver began to search the apartment and opened up cabinets, drawers, and the
refrigerator, which occurred without J.M.’s consent. J.M. sent a quick text to her father
that read, “Dad, I’m scared. The police are here.” After dressing, J.M. was escorted by the
officers out of the apartment, down the stairs, and to the nearby apartment office building
where the officers started to question J.M. in a conference room without notifying her of
her Miranda rights.
26. Oddly, the officers failed to ask J.M. detailed questions about her caretaking
arrangement while they were with her in the apartment office. Lt. Brunner simply asked
J.M. about when Vanessa Vallejo last “checked on” her. As this was happening, Mr.
McMurry repeatedly called J.M. by Facetime and sent her multiple texts to try to learn
what was happening, asking by text, “Why can I not FaceTime audio you? . . . Can you not
FaceTime audio? Are you there?” But the officers ordered J.M. not to text or call anyone,
and the officers made no attempt to contact Mr. McMurry who remained in the dark about
what was going on between the police and his daughter until many hours later when the
officers finally let them talk. Officer Weaver conceded at Ms. McMurry’s trial that she
barred J.M. from contacting her father.
27. Although it seems that the officers failed to clarify the facts about the
caretaking arrangements from persons with personal knowledge, they were not deterred
from contacting the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (CPS) to file a
complaint about Ms. McMurry and misrepresent facts about this matter. Officer Weaver

contacted the CPS hotline in Austin, Texas before the officers arrived at the apartment
complex, and Officer Brunner contacted the local office of CPS when he was at the
apartment complex. One or both of them told CPS that Ms. McMurry had left the children
home alone, that a neighbor would only “periodically check” on them, and that the
children did not go to school that day (despite the fact both officers had already been told
that C.M. was sitting in class at the junior high school and even though Officer
Weaver knew that J.M. was homeschooled and not enrolled in Midland ISD). Lt. Brunner
later stated in his Affidavits for Probable Cause to indict Ms. McMurry that he told the
agency he would be taking J.M. to Abell Junior High School for “safety purposes,” thus
indicating that he made a decision to transport J.M. to the school without receiving a
request or directive from CPS.
28. Thereafter, Lt. Brunner contacted Vanessa Vallejos by telephone telling her,
“I’ve got to speak to you because a 14-year old and a 12-year old being left home alone is
a criminal offense.” In their short conversation, Lt. Brunner asked Ms. Vallejos no
questions about the caretaking arrangements for the McMurry children and clarified to
Ms. Vallejos that she was not the target of their investigation. He asked if Ms. Vallejos
preferred to speak with him in person. When she said yes, he directed her to meet him at
Abell Junior High School because he said that they would be taking J.M. to the school.
29. J.M. told the office staff at the apartment complex that she wanted to reach
her father. When one of the apartment employees informed the officers that J.M. wanted
to speak to Mr. McMurry, Lt. Brunner again refused to let J.M. call him.
30. Afterwards, the officers took J.M. to their police car, placed her in the back
seat, and drove her to Abell Junior High School, about a six-mile drive. Lt. Brunner would

later explain in his Affidavits for Probable Cause that this was done so that J.M. would not
be home alone in the apartment. When Lt. Brunner saw J.M. start texting on her phone,
he commanded that she put down her phone. During the ride, J.M noticed a call coming
from Vanessa Vallejos. J.M. asked if she could answer the call and again Lt.
Brunner told her no. J.M. remained tearful and distraught during the ride, telling the
officers, “I’m very scared.”
31. There are few circumstances under Texas law that allow a law enforcement
officer to seize a child. This was not one of them. For example, an officer may detain a
child to assist an injured party, pursuant to the laws of arrest, or when the officer suspects
probable cause of delinquent conduct. Additionally, a law enforcement officer may detain
a child when exigent circumstances exist that reasonably cause the officer to believe the
child is in imminent danger of physical or sexual abuse if she remains in the home. The
latter ground is apparently the premise upon which the officers relied to detain J.M. At
Ms. McMurry’s criminal trial, Ms. Weaver later claimed that she found alcohol in the
refrigerator which heightened her concerns about the children, even though she
mentioned nothing of this in her police report. More telling, Officer’s Weaver body camera
video of her unlawful search of the house showed no alcohol in the refrigerator, and Ms.
McMurry did not usually keep alcohol in the apartment and she had left none there before
her trip to Kuwait. Officer Weaver testified that her “concern” was also heightened when
J.M. left the apartment because she did not lock the door. But Ms. Weaver neglected to
inquire about how the locking mechanism even worked. Had she done so, she would have
learned that the apartment complex used a Smart Lock mechanism for all doors that
connect to cell phones via Bluetooth. In other words, when a resident leaves the apartment
with a cell phone on their person, the door automatically locks.

32. At Abell Junior High School, the officers walked J.M. through the school’s
main front door as she sobbed in full sight of employees and students, leaving her feeling
humiliated and distressed. One student texted J.M. to ask why she was being detained.
The officers confined J.M. in one of the administration offices so they could leave to
question others. The junior high school principal, meanwhile, continued in her effort to
lend support to the police officers’ action, sitting in during their interviews with the
Vallejoses and with C.M., whom they had pulled out of class.
33. At Ms. McMurry’s trial, the Vallejoses testified that Lt. Brunner did most of
the talking during his 12-minute conversation with them at Abell Junior High School and
that they barely spoke. During one exchange, Lt. Brunner said, “From my rationale,
there’s a difference between being at work and letting the kid be at home a couple of hours
versus being in a different country.” The Vallejoses remained confused as to why J.M. had
been detained in the first place and taken to the school, but Lt. Brunner explained, “I felt
it was a safer environment than for her being home alone.” Contradictorily, the officers
did not accuse the Vallejoses themselves of abandoning the children because of their
previous night stay in the McMurry apartment (seemingly, the main fact that triggered
the officers’ “concerns”). Even more strangely, Lt. Brunner told the couple—despite
having custodial care of J.M. and C.M. during this time—that they could leave the middle
school before the CPS investigator arrived to talk to the children.
Mr. Vallejos testified at trial that it seemed like Mr. Brunner did not want them there. But
the two indicated that they refused to leave until the investigation was done so they could
take the children back into their custody and take them home.
34. When the officers were finished, Vanessa Vallejos met up with J.M. in the
principal’s office and asked if J.M. could call her father. Remarkably, the school district

employees did not contact Mr. McMurry directly to inform him that J.M. was detained at
the school and that police officers would be interviewing C.M. even though they had his
contact information given that the school district’s handbook requires such parental
notice except for abuse investigations. Not until several hours after the officers first seized
J.M. did they allow her to call her father. Mr. McMurry and J.M. finally connected via a
Facetime call with Vanessa Vallejos nearby. Mr. McMurry asked the two to summon of
one of the school district employees or officers to speak with him. Though they asked,
none wanted to speak with him.
35. It bears mention that Ms. McMurry was still on a plane that began its
descent into Kuwait City while most of this was occurring. Once the plane landed and Ms.
McMurry reactivated her phone, she immediately received calls from CPS and others, but
none from the police officers or any administrators from Midland ISD. When Ms.
McMurry later contacted Officer Weaver that afternoon, the officer told her that she had
received an “anonymous”, “credible” tip about the children, that J.M. was removed from
the “situation,” and that it was protocol for the police to “remove” a child “from an
endangered situation and to take them to a safe place.”
36. In the afternoon, a special investigator from CPS arrived to investigate the
officers’ complaint. At Ms. McMurry’s trial, several employees of CPS testified about the
agency’s investigation of the Midland ISD complaint, including the special investigator
who went to Abell Junior High School (himself a former police officer), a program director
for the agency’s investigations unit, and the unit’s supervisor. After conferring with the
children at the school, the Vallejoses, the police officers, Ms. McMurry who they promptly
reached by telephone, and the school counselor who was supposed to take C.M. to school
that morning, the department promptly closed the investigation. CPS witnesses at trial

testified that they had determined that the children had not been left unattended without
adult supervision. Overall, the testimony of the witnesses and the report of the agency
showed that the McMurry children’s needs were being met, that
Ms. McMurry had made appropriate child care arrangements for the children and for
C.M.’s transportation to school in her absence, that the children were able to respond to
emergencies, that they faced no unreasonable risk of harm, and that there was no finding
of abuse or neglect. The special investigator on the scene notified the parties that the
children could leave with Ms. Vallejos to return to their home to the apparent chagrin of
Officers Brunner and Weaver.
37. Despite the outcome of the CPS investigation, Officer Weaver and Lt.
Brunner persisted in trying to build a criminal case against Ms. McMurry. The following
Monday, Officer Weaver conducted an interview with the counselor who said she was sick
the previous Friday and who could not take C.M. to school. On the Friday before, the same
school counselor had told CPS that she had no concerns for the children about their
caretaking arrangements during Ms. McMurry’s trip. Upon information and belief,
however, Officer Weaver coached the counselor about how to answer questions before she
started the recorded interview and prompted the counselor to say negative things about
Ms. McMurry, most of which had little to do with the weekend at issue.
38. Meanwhile, Ms. McMurry cancelled her visit with the international school
in Kuwait and spent the remaining days there trying to catch an early flight home to no
avail. She finally returned to Midland on October 30, 2018. As the police officers told
Ms. McMurry they wanted to obtain her statement, despite her being cleared by CPS, Ms.
McMurry realized that the officers still wanted to pursue abandonment charges against
her.

39. The month of November 2018 was especially trying for the McMurry family.
J.M. was rattled and frightened by the experience and remained distraught and upset.
Megan McMurry was likewise disturbed, upset, and anguished by what her daughter had
been put through, as well as the shame and embarrassment of being accused of abdicating
her caretaking responsibilities. Both she and J.M. began to experience sleeplessness,
depression, anxiety, and disruption in their daily routines. Ms. McMurry’s marriage with
her husband suffered. Ms. McMurry and J.M. entered therapy in November 2018 that
would continue through the middle of 2020. J.M. became fearful and distrustful of law
enforcement, and she panicked during an episode months later when she was pulled over
by police for a moving violation. Mr. McMurry felt angry and frustrated that he was
separated from his family by distance during this time, and he struggled to stay focused
over the next seven months during his dangerous mission for the Mississippi Army
National Guard.
40. Making matters worse, Officer Weaver gossiped about the criminal
investigation with other employees at the school district even though Ms. McMurry had
not been charged with a crime. She told others that Ms. McMurry had “abandoned” her
children, that she was going to jail, and that a “federal warrant” would be issued for her
arrest. Students at Abell Junior High School asked C.M. if his mother might soon be
arrested and if she had abandoned him. C.M. began to feel so uncomfortable there that he
asked his parents to remove him from school.
41. Officer Weaver’s defamation of Ms. McMurry and her announcing to others
at Abell Junior High School that McMurry would be charged with a crime and sent to jail
tarnished her reputation there.

42. Furthermore, the police officers’ sustained effort to charge Ms. McMurry
with a crime undermined her employment relationship with the school district. When Ms.
McMurry decided to travel to Kuwait to view the international school that had offered her
a job, she resigned as a teacher for the 2018 to 2019 school year with the consent of the
school district. However, the two parties later agreed that Ms. McMurry could continue
to teach in the school district until she made a final decision about whether to stay at
Midland ISD or not, and the school district continued to keep Ms. McMurry in her
position as a special education teacher with the same compensation and benefits that she
received before.
43. When Ms. McMurry returned to Midland, she met with Midland ISD’s chief
of human capital management at his request on October 31, 2018. During this meeting,
the chief notified Ms. McMurry verbally and in writing that the school district was putting
her on administrative leave without pay pending the outcome of the
“current investigation” of the abandonment of children complaint. He further told Ms.
McMurry that her job would be waiting for her once the investigation was completed and
she was cleared of any wrongdoing. The school official then informed Ms. McMurry that
she was barred from appearing on campus or attending school-related events, even
though her son was still enrolled in the junior high school, and he instructed her to refrain
from discussing the leave with others.
44. As such, the school district continued to maintain control over Ms. McMurry
and issue directives to her as an employee in the interim, which it would not have done if
Ms. McMurry had been an at-will educator with no employment contract under chapter
21 of the Texas Education Code. These actions revealed that the school district rescinded
its previous action to accept Ms. McMurry’s resignation, that Ms. McMurry’s contract was

reinstated, and that Ms. McMurry resumed her duties as a special education teacher
under contract for the 2018 to 2019 school year.
45. Though the school district continued to pay her salary through the end of
2018, Ms. McMurry’s role vis-à-vis the school district remained in flux because it did not
ask her to return to the classroom, nor did it ever tell her that it intended to terminate her
as a teacher. Upset by how the school district police handled the seizure of her daughter
and lacking clarity about her job status, Ms. McMurry filed a grievance against Midland
ISD on November 16, 2018 pursuant to the school district’s board policy manual,
complaining about J.M.’s detention and seeking formal reinstatement of her job, among
other things.
46. On December 4, 2018, Officer Brunner filed two separate Affidavits for
Probable Cause to initiate arrest warrants for Ms. McMurry for “abandoning or
endangering” her children. However, the affidavits contained no new details about the
McMurrys’ caretaking arrangements for their children than what was already known on
October 26, 2018. Under state law, the crime of abandonment occurs when a person,
having custody or care of a child under 15, intentionally leaves the child in a place without
providing reasonable and necessary care so that it exposes the child to an unreasonable
risk of harm. Tex. Penal Code § 22.041. In the affidavits, Mr. Brunner acknowledged that
he brought J.M. to Abell Junior High School where C.M. was located because he had
anticipated that CPS would be taking the children into custody after it conducted its
investigation. At the trial on the abandonment charge, Officer Weaver justified the
probable cause affidavit by stating that in her opinion, the children were left for an
extended period of time without reasonable and proper care immediately available to the
children because they had spent the night of October 25, 2018 in their apartment, even

though the word “immediately” is not embedded in the Penal Code section on
abandonment. She further admitted at trial that the law does not place an age limit of
when a child may sleep in a residence overnight without an adult.
47. Faced with the outstanding arrest warrant, Ms. McMurry turned herself into
the Midland County Jail on December 6, 2018 and she remained in jail for 19 hours while
the staff there completed the processing of her bail bond.
48. The school district took up Ms. McMurry’s grievance the following year. The
administrative process for grievances has three stages of review. The parties held a
grievance hearing for the first stage, known as Level 1, on January 8, 2019. On January
21, 2019, the school district’s executive director for secondary education issued a written
decision denying Ms. McMurry’s grievance. Regarding the detention of J.M., he said, “I
have determined that it was not inappropriate to transport your daughter to Abell [Junior
High School]. The decision was made because . . . Abell was a safe environment where an
administrator could be present and where your daughter could be supervised.” As for Ms.
McMurry’s teaching job, the executive director claimed that Ms. McMurry was only a
temporary employee and that the district had not extended her teaching contract, thus
denying her claim for reinstatement. But the school official failed to explain why the
school district continued to pay Ms. McMurry her salary through the end of the 2018
calendar year.
49. Ms. McMurry appealed this decision to the next stage. The parties held a
Level 2 hearing on February 22, 2019, and the school district’s chief academic officer
issued a written decision dated March 7, 2019 denying Ms. McMurry’s requested relief.
He said, “It appears the officers acted in good faith to ensure [the McMurry] children were

safe and secure. . . . Once it was determined that [the] children did not have adequate
supervision, Abell was the best place to continue the inquiry.”
50. Unhappy with this decision, Ms. McMurry took her grievance to the
Midland ISD Board of Trustees in what is known as a Level 3 Appeal. There, Ms. McMurry
made a presentation to the board through an attorney on June 24, 2019. The school
district’s counsel told the board in the same meeting that the McMurry children were
interviewed at the school “to find out what we needed to do as a school district to best
take care of our students and make sure they were safe.” After considering the matter, the
board unanimously voted to deny the grievance, thus ratifying acts and omissions of
subordinates, including Officers Weaver and Brunner and other school district personnel
and staff.
51. These events further harmed Ms. McMurry because they resulted in the
termination of Ms. McMurry’s employment with Midland ISD, even though the school
district did not follow the Texas Education Code’s procedures to terminate an educator’s
contract, depriving Ms. McMurry of her salary through the end of the school year.
Additionally, these events interfered with Ms. McMurry’s ability to get a new teaching job.
Because the Texas State Board of Educator Certification learned of Ms. McMurry’s arrest,
the agency placed an investigative flag on Ms. McMurry’s teaching certificate, preventing
her from seeking a job in the teaching field with another school district. Ms. McMurry has
not worked as a teacher since October 2018. This has further adversely impacted her
ability to comply with the conditions of TEACH Grant assistance that she received in
college requiring her to work in the teaching field for a minimum period of time after
graduation. With the approach of her performance deadline, the grant will be converted
into a loan that Ms. McMurry will be forced to pay back.

52. The fallout from Ms. McMurry’s trip to Kuwait finally culminated in a
criminal trial in a district court in Midland County, Texas that started on January 6,
2020. The McMurrys were forced to spend substantial funds to hire counsel to defend
Ms. McMurry through the criminal case. At the end of the trial on January 9, 2020, Ms.
McMurry was promptly acquitted by a jury. Several months later, the Texas State Board
of Educator Certification removed its investigatory flag on Ms. McMurry’s teaching
certificate.
VI. Count I
Violations of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
53. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all the above-related paragraphs with the
same force and effect as if herein set forth
54. Midland ISD, Weaver, and Brunner, acting under color of law and
pursuant to the customs and policies of the school district, jointly and severally deprived
Megan McMurry, Adam Seth McMurry, and J.M. of rights and privileges secured to them
by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
55. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and
seizures. As described previously, Officer Weaver conducted a search of the McMurry
apartment without a warrant and without the consent of J.M., much less that of an adult,
thus invading the rights of J.M. and her parents.
56. Moreover, the Fourth Amendment applies in the context of the removal of
a child from a home. The seizure of a child is reasonable if it is pursuant to a court order,
if it is supported by probable cause, or if it is justified by exigent circumstances to cause
police officers to have reason to believe that life and limb are in immediate jeopardy. A

seizure occurs when a reasonable person facing a show of authority believes she is not free
to leave and her liberty of movement is restricted or restrained.
57. As indicated in the facts beforehand, Officer Weaver and Officer Brunner
falsely imprisoned J.M. willfully and without authority of law. None of the factors that
would allow a law enforcement officer to take temporary custody of a child on an
emergency basis under the Texas Family Code were present here. The two officers
detained and transported J.M. without notifying her parents and without following any
instruction or mandate from CPS to do so. Apparently, the officers’ chief aim was to
manufacture an indictment against Ms. McMurry for abandonment and to incentivize
CPS to take custody of her children.
58. Midland ISD ratified the acts and omissions of the two police officers and of
other school district personnel who aided them in allowing J.M.’s constitutional rights to
be violated or by acquiescing to the police officer’s conduct in their detention and
interrogation of J.M. outside of her home. Furthermore, Midland ISD ratified the acts and
omissions of the police officers through its high-ranking personnel who endorsed the
officers’ conduct through Ms. McMurry’s grievance complaint and by their repeated
defense of the police officers’ actions to Ms. McMurry during the grievance process. When
the Board of Trustees, the school district’s highest lawmaking body, validated and ratified
the police officers’ conduct during a board meeting in June 2019 that heard Ms.
McMurry’s grievance complaint, the school district officially adopted and sanctioned the
police officers’ interactions with J.M., converting the conduct at issue into the official
policy of the school district.
59. In addition, the acts and omissions resulted from the official custom of the
school district so as to fairly represent its policy. School district officials endorsed and

validated the police officers’ actions throughout this episode, from the assistant principal
and principal of the Abell Junior High School, to the school district’s director of secondary
education, to the district’s chief academic officer, and finally to the Board of Trustees. In
effect, all continually assented to the conduct at issue and concluded that the school
district’s police officers could detain children and remove children from their homes
outside the parameters allowed for custodial seizures of children under state law,
including children not present on school grounds and children who are not even students
of the school district itself. They further failed to take steps to reign in Officer Weaver who
defamed Ms. McMurry and invaded her privacy in the school district about this incident.
60. The acts and omissions complained of were a moving force of the violations
against Megan McMurry, Adam McMurry, and J.M. with the policy and custom of the
school district operating as the direct cause of their harm. The policy and custom
mentioned above was unconstitutional on its face. Assuming it could be characterized as
facially innocuous, then the policy or custom was promulgated with deliberate
indifference to the known or obvious consequences that violations of federally-protected
rights would result since it was reasonably foreseeable that there was a risk for the school
district to allow its police officers to operate with impunity and that their actions might
bring harm to J.M. and others. Midland ISD acquiesced to and rationalized the
misconduct of its police officers and formally authorized it when Ms. McMurry
complained about it through the grievance process. Further, the school district failed to
take steps to rectify Ms. Weaver’s defamation of Ms. McMurry and the invasion of her
privacy.
61. Midland ISD is further liable to Plaintiffs on the basis of supervisory
liability. Midland ISD failed to properly supervise or train its police officers and that its

lack of training and supervision resulted in the police officers’ failure to understand their
powers as peace officers, their professional duties to diligently investigate complaints, and
their duty to accurately report and not misrepresent information they collect in
connection with criminal investigations. Also, the school district’s lack of training resulted
in Officer Weaver gratuitously disclosing information about a pending investigation to
others before indictment. Upon information and belief, the police officers at issue have
been the subject of other complaints by parents with students enrolled in the school
district casting doubt on their understanding of their professional responsibilities as
police officers for the school district. The need for more training and supervision was
obvious, and the school district’s failure to properly train or supervise its personnel made
it likely that the police officers would ultimately intrude on the rights of parents, students,
and others, such as in this case.
62. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ violation of their Fourth Amendment
rights have caused them economic damages, medical costs, out-of-pocket attorneys’ fees,
and mental anguish damages for which they now sue. Because Defendants acted
recklessly and with callous indifference to the federally-protected rights of others,
Plaintiffs further seek to recover punitive damages. Finally, Plaintiffs seek to recover their
attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
VII. Count II
Violations of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
same force and effect as if herein set forth.
64. Midland ISD, Weaver, and Brunner, acting under color of law and

pursuant to the customs and policies of the school district, jointly and severally deprived
Megan McMurry and Adam Seth McMurry of rights and privileges secured to them by the
Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
65. The right of family integrity has been recognized as a fundamental liberty
interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, which applies to all family members,
including parents and children. The Amendment guards against government
interference with such interests, and it requires that the government provide procedural
due process before making a decision to infringe on a person’s life, liberty, or property
interest.
66. Given that the police officers did not have reasonable cause to believe J.M.
was in imminent danger of physical or sexual abuse, then no exigent circumstances
existed to justify their temporary detention of her for protection.
67. Accordingly, Officer Weaver and Officer Brunner encroached upon the
McMurry’s substantive due process against interference with their right to family
integrity. The officers impinged upon the parents’ interests in making decisions regarding
the care of their children, and they interfered with the family members’ interest in
remaining together as a family unit. The officers had no compelling interest to warrant
the removal of J.M. from the McMurry home. They did not ask CPS to step in to take over
their initial investigation. Assuming the officers had cause to believe J.M.’s caretaking
situation needed to be scrutinized, they did not employ the least restrictive means to
undertake their investigation. They ordered J.M. out of the house, interrogated her in an
apartment office, and then transported her to a school where she was not enrolled as a
student for further interrogation and held her there for hours.

68. Moreover, the police officers and school district personnel failed to provide
the McMurrys with any of the procedural due process protections that would normally
apply to state removal of a child, such as notice, full hearing, the right to legal counsel,
and the presence of a neutral official presiding over the hearing. Indeed, the two police
officers prohibited J.M. from contacting Mr. McMurry during her detention and he was
left to wonder for several hours what crisis beset his daughter after she told him that police
had just arrived at their apartment. They also stopped her from communicating with her
neighbors who were their caretakers for that weekend. The officers distorted information
that they acquired during their investigation and neglected to ask witnesses with personal
knowledge important questions to clarify the caretaking arrangements. Early on, they had
made up their minds that Ms. McMurry had abandoned the children and continued to
seek information that might support their preordained conclusions. All in all, Officer
Weaver and Officer Brunner arbitrarily and unfairly deprived the McMurrys of their right
to familial integrity.
69. Midland ISD ratified the acts and omissions of the two police officers and of
other school district personnel who aided them in allowing J.M.’s constitutional rights to
be violated or by acquiescing to the police officer’s conduct in their detention and
interrogation of J.M. outside of her home. Furthermore, Midland ISD ratified the acts and
omissions of the police officers through its high-ranking personnel who endorsed the
officers’ conduct through Ms. McMurry’s grievance complaint and by their repeated
defense of the police officers’ actions to Ms. McMurry during the grievance process. When
the Board of Trustees, the school district’s highest lawmaking body, validated and ratified
the police officers’ conduct during a board meeting in June 2019 that heard Ms.
McMurry’s grievance complaint, the school district officially adopted and sanctioned the

police officers’ interactions with J.M., converting the conduct at issue into the official
policy of the school district.
70. In addition, the acts and omissions resulted from the official custom of the
school district so as to fairly represent its policy. School district officials endorsed and
validated the police officers’ actions throughout this episode, from the assistant principal
and principal of the Abell Junior High School, to the school district’s director of secondary
education, to the district’s chief academic officer, and finally to the Board of Trustees. In
effect, all continually assented to the conduct at issue and concluded that the school
district’s police officers could detain children and remove children from their homes
outside the parameters allowed for custodial seizures of children under state law,
including children not present on school grounds and children who are not even students
of the school district itself. Making matters worse, they failed to take steps to reign in
Officer Weaver who defamed Ms. McMurry and invaded her privacy in the
school district.
71. The acts and omissions complained of were a moving force of the violations
against Megan McMurry, Adam McMurry, and J.M. with the policy and custom of the
school district operating as the direct cause of their harm. The policy and custom
mentioned above was unconstitutional on its face. Assuming it could be characterized as
facially innocuous, then the policy or custom was promulgated with deliberate
indifference to the known or obvious consequences that violations of federally-protected
rights would result since it was reasonably foreseeable that there was a risk for the school
district to allow its police officers to operate with impunity and that their actions might
bring harm to J.M. and others. Midland ISD acquiesced to and rationalized the
misconduct of its police officers and formally authorized it when Ms. McMurry

complained about it through the grievance process. Further, the school district failed to
take steps to rectify Ms. Weaver’s defamation of Ms. McMurry and the invasion of her
privacy.
72. Midland ISD is further liable to Plaintiffs on the basis of supervisory
liability. Midland ISD failed to properly supervise or train its police officers and that its
lack of training and supervision resulted in the police officers’ failure to understand their
powers as peace officers, their professional duties to diligently investigate complaints, and
their duty to accurately report and not misrepresent information they collect in
connection with criminal investigations. Also, the school district’s lack of training resulted
in Officer Weaver gratuitously disclosing information about a pending investigation to
others before indictment. Upon information and belief, the police officers at issue have
been the subject of other complaints by parents with students enrolled in the school
district casting doubt on their understanding of their professional responsibilities as
police officers for the school district. The need for more training and supervision was
obvious, and the school district’s failure to properly train or supervise its personnel made
it likely that the police officers would ultimately intrude on the rights of parents, students,
and others, such as in this case.
73. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ violation of their Fourteenth
Amendment rights have caused them economic damages, medical costs, out-of-pocket
attorneys’ fees, and mental anguish damages for which they now sue. Because Defendants
acted recklessly and with callous indifference to the federally-protected rights of others,
Plaintiffs further seek to recover punitive damages. Finally, Plaintiffs seek to recover their

VIII. Count III
Breach of Contract/Lack of Due Process under the Texas Education Code

and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
(By Megan McMurry Against Midland ISD)
75. By virtue of her contract of employment with Midland ISD, Ms. McMurry
had a property right in her contract of employment through the end of the term of the
2018 to 2019 school year. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the deprivation of
property rights without due process of law.
76. Because Midland ISD failed to pay Ms. McMurry and provide her with the
fringe benefits of her employment for the duration of the school year, it breached its
contract with Ms. McMurry in prematurely ending the term of her employment. Though
Midland ISD took the position that it had ended Ms. McMurry’s employment in October
2018, the school district continued to issue directives to Ms. McMurry after this period of
time and pay her the same salary and benefits as before, and it assured her that her job
position would resume after it concluded its investigation into the accusation of
abandonment of children. Because of the reinstated employment contract, Midland ISD
could have only discharged Ms. McMurry on the basis of good cause or financial exigency
as required by chapter 21 of the Texas Education Code. However, the school district did
not follow these procedures to discharge Ms. McMurry, and it simply stopped paying Ms.
McMurry her salary and benefits after 2018. Midland ISD further failed to provide Ms.
McMurry with procedural due process rights to excuse the early termination of her
employment, such as the right of notice and an opportunity to be heard in a pre-

termination hearing pursuant to chapter 21 of the Texas Education Code and the
Fourteenth Amendment.
77. Plaintiff Megan McMurry now sues Midland ISD for her economic
damages, and she sues to recover her attorneys’ fees pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.
Code § 38.001 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
IX. Count IV
Defamation and Invasion of Privacy

(By Megan McMurry Against Alexandra Weaver)
79. Officer Weaver made defamatory statements about Ms. McMurry to fellow
co-workers at Abell Junior High School. She impugned the integrity and character of Ms.
McMurry, which exposed her to contempt, ridicule, and financial injury. Ms. McMurry
suffered damages as a result. Therefore, Officer Weaver is liable to Ms. McMurry for
defamation.
80. Officer Weaver is also liable to Ms. McMurry for invasion of privacy because
Officer Weaver went around and openly discussed the fact there was a pending
investigation into Ms. McMurry to others. While the fact of an investigation might have
been true, Officer Weaver caused unreasonable publicity to be given to the private life of
Ms. McMurry when there was no legitimate public concern to reveal the same, as this
occurred before Ms. McMurry’s criminal indictment. Officer Weaver’s conduct likely
violated confidentiality laws to protect the identity of minors found in federal law and in
Tex. Fam. Code § 58.008. Ms. Weaver’s discussions about the investigation occurred
without Ms. McMurry’s knowledge or consent and in violation of her right of privacy. The

disclosure of such confidential and highly personal information was offensive to any
person of ordinary sensibilities, and Ms. McMurry suffered damages as a result.
81. A state cause of action for defamation is actionable under section 1983 when
it connected to and reasonably related to an infringement of another right. As described
above, Officer Weaver violated Ms. McMurry’s right against unreasonable searches and
right to family integrity in this incident, and she invaded Ms. McMurry’s personal privacy.
82. Because Officer’s Weaver’s defamatory statements and invasion of privacy
did not relate to her performance of duties requiring the exercise of judgment or
discretion, then she is not shielded by Texas’ statutory immunity for school district
employees as she unmistakably acted outside the scope of her regular duties in
committing the intentional torts.
83. Plaintiff Megan McMurry contends that Officer Weaver’s commission of
defamation and invasion of privacy have caused her damages for which she now sues.
Because Defendant Weaver acted recklessly and with callous indifference, Ms. McMurry
further seeks to recover punitive damages. Finally, Ms. McMurry seeks to recover her
X. Demand for Jury Trial
84. Pursuant to Fed. R. of Civ. P. 38, Plaintiffs demand a jury trial for all issues in
this matter.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that Defendants Midland Independent School
District, Alexandra Weaver, and Kevin Brunner be cited to appear and answer and that,
upon final trial, the Court enter judgment granting Plaintiffs the following relief against
Defendants, jointly and severally:

1. Actual damages;
2. Punitive damages;
3. Plaintiffs’ reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in

pursuing this claim together with conditional awards of additional attorneys’ fees
in the event of the filing post-verdict motions and/or appeals;
4. Prejudgment interest as allowed by law;
5. All costs of court;
6. Post-judgment interest as allowed by law; and
7. Such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiffs may show
themselves to be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
BLUMBERG BAGLEY PLLC
by: /s/ Peter F. Bagley Peter

F. Bagley
Texas Bar No. 00783581
2304 W. Interstate 20, Ste. 190
Arlington, Texas 76017
(817) 277-1500
Facsimile (817) 277-1170
[email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

MISD Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MISD Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 7:20-cv-00242 Document 2 Filed 10/16/20 Page 1 of 31

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MEGAN MARIE McMURRY, Individually §

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Individually and a/n/f of J.M. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”), bring

Individually (collectively termed the “Defendants”), and in support thereof, Plaintiffs

would respectfully show the following:

I. Nature & Purpose of the Action

of contract, defamation, and invasion of privacy.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 1

2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1331

and laws of the United States of America.

common law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Texas and currently reside in McKinney, Texas.

Seth McMurry who resides with her parents in McKinney, Texas.

7. Defendant Midland Independent School District is a school district

W. Missouri Avenue, Midland, Texas 79701.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 2

8. Defendant Alexandra Weaver is an individual who can be served with

9. Defendant Kevin Brunner is an individual who can be served with process

at the Midland Independent School District Police Department, 615 W. Missouri

Avenue, Midland, Texas 79701.

before transferring to the U.S. Army Reserves in March 2020.

11. The McMurrys have two children—J.M. and C.M.—who do well

family business, school work, and their daily routines.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 3

them, and knew how to administer CPR.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 4

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 5

McMurrys upside-down because of Officer Weaver’s excessively eager investigation into

all she really knew.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 6

doing her online, homeschool lessons.

first place by this point in time.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 7

semester as Ms. McMurry went to work at the school district.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 8

her Miranda rights.

barred J.M. from contacting her father.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 9

request or directive from CPS.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 10

with a cell phone on their person, the door automatically locks.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 11

school before the CPS investigator arrived to talk to the children.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 12

none wanted to speak with him.

endangered situation and to take them to a safe place.”

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 13

Officers Brunner and Weaver.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 14

asked his parents to remove him from school.

tarnished her reputation there.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 15

her on administrative leave without pay pending the outcome of the

“current investigation” of the abandonment of children complaint. He further told Ms.

from discussing the leave with others.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 16

under contract for the 2018 to 2019 school year.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 17

when a child may sleep in a residence overnight without an adult.

the staff there completed the processing of her bail bond.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 18

supervision, Abell was the best place to continue the inquiry.”