– 1 –

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

Mitchell Ryan

Plaintiff,

v.

Grapevine-Colleyville Independent School 

District and Jorge Rodriguez in his official 

capacity as GCISD School Board President

Defendants.

VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-1075

Plaintiff Mitchell Ryan (“Ryan”) brings this civil action against Defendants

Grapevine-Colleyville Independent School District (“GCISD”) and Jorge Rodriguez

(“President Rodriguez”) in his official capacity as GCISD School Board President, for 

nominal damages, actual damages, and injunctive relief, and alleges as follows:

Introduction

1. This action seeks nominal damages, actual damages, and injunctive relief to 

remedy unconstitutional restrictions of Ryan’s rights protected under the First 

Amendment.

2. Mitchell Ryan is a resident of GCISD. He has been vocal regarding the issue 

of critical theory in GCISD schools generally, and specifically regarding the efforts of 
– 2 –

GCISD Colleyville Heritage High School Principal James Whitfield’s efforts to promote

critical theory.

3. The GCISD school board maintains an open public forum at its meetings for 

citizens, like Ryan, to address the board. Despite this generally open forum, GCISD has 

adopted and published speech content and viewpoint restrictions that have been applied 

against Ryan to prevent him from sharing his views on Principal Whitfield, district 

governance, and other issues. The District has revised its policies, but has used both the 

past set of restrictions and current set of restrictions to suppress Ryan’s speech while 

allowing others to speak.

4. Evidence shows that the policies are enforced against Ryan in particular on 

account of his race, and because he has been a critic of district policies. Absent court 

intervention, Defendants will continue to enforce its unconstitutional restrictions against 

Ryan, causing an ongoing, irreparable injury to him under the First Amendment to the 

United States Constitution.

Jurisdiction and Venue

5. This action arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the 

United States Constitution and is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 

1343.

7. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because the 

Defendants reside in this district and a substantial part of the events giving rise to this 

claim occurred in this district.
– 3 –

Parties

8. Plaintiff Mitchell Ryan is an individual who resides in Tarrant County, 

Texas. He is a resident and taxpayer of GCISD who regularly attends GCISD board 

meetings and comments during the open public forum portion of the meetings.

9. Defendant Grapevine-Colleyville Independent School District is an 

independent school district located in Tarrant County.

10. Defendant Jorge Rodriguez is the GCISD School Board President. Under 

the Board’s policies, President Rodriguez is charged with presiding over GCISD board 

meetings and enforcing the board’s policies with regard to the open public forum portion 

of the meeting. He is sued in his official capacity as GCISD School Board President.

11. Defendants have been, at all relevant times to this suit, acting under color 

of state law in taking the actions complained of herein.

Statement of Facts

12. Grapevine-Colleyville Independent School District allows at least 30 

minutes for citizens to address the board at its meetings during an open public forum. 

Citizens are allowed to address the board for no less than one minute and up to three 

minutes depending on the number of citizens who sign up to speak. Based on its allowance 

of speech from citizens on virtually any topic, GCISD has created a designated public 

forum.

13. GCISD has for many years maintained policies in its Board Policy Manual to 

govern public participation in its board meetings. Board Policy BED (Local) is based on 

model policies distributed by the Texas Association of School Boards (“TASB”). In this 
– 4 –

suit, Ryan does not challenge the scope or enforcement of Board Policy BED (LOCAL).

Instead, this suit concerns supplemental policies drafted and applied by GCISD without 

guidance from TASB.

14. At the July 26, 2021 GCISD Regular Board Meeting, two events occurred 

which prompted GCISD to supplement its existing Board Policies with unconstitutional 

speech restrictions. First, Former GCISD School Board President Stetson Clark called on 

the Board of Trustees to fire GCISD Colleyville Heritage High School Principal James 

Whitfield on account of Whitfield’s alleged promotion of critical race theory at the high 

school. Rodriguez repeatedly gaveled and interrupted Clark, instructing him that he was 

not allowed to name and criticize Whitfield, and that only “kudos” of district employees 

were allowed. Second, Plaintiff Mitchell Ryan brought to the Board of Trustees’ attention 

a book that was available to students in one of the District’s middle school libraries that 

glorified sex acts by pre-pubescent children.

15. Following the July meeting, and concurrent with the District’s August 23, 

2021 Regular Board meeting, GCISD supplemented its existing Board Policies with 

additional content-based and viewpoint-based restrictions on citizen-speech during the

open public forum period of GCISD meetings. The supplemental policy stated:

Attacks of a personal nature against Board members, GCISD 

staff, students or other citizens will not be allowed or 

tolerated. Speakers must refrain from mentioning specific 

names of staff members during their comments.

16. Prior to the August meeting, the “Requests to Speak During Open Forum” 

form signed by citizens who sought to address the board of trustees stated: “We request 
– 5 –

that persons speaking in open forum on items not on the agenda refrain from raising 

complaints against such individuals or personally identifying them in any way in their 

remarks unless it is pursuant to the District's grievance policies.”

17. However, for the August meeting, this language was reworded from a 

request to a mandate. The language employed on the form for August stated: “Persons 

speaking in open forum may not raise complaints against individual employees or 

students, or personally identify them in any way in their remarks.”

18. Ryan attended the Board’s August 23, 2021 meeting and attempted to 

comment regarding Principal James Whitfield, principal of GCISD’s Colleyville Heritage 

High School. During his comments, Ryan was interrupted repeatedly by GCISD School 

Board President Jorge Rodriguez and disallowed from continuing his comments regarding 

Principal Whitfield. Similarly, another woman was interrupted and reprimanded by 

Rodriguez when her comments simply criticized actions taken by “a district employee.” 

However, at the same meeting, Rodriguez allowed a woman to mention Principal 

Whitfield’s name three times while offering comments favorable to Principal Whitfield.

19. In a comment on Facebook, President Rodriguez explained that he had not 

applied the policy banning mentions of a district employee’s name, as written, but had 

instead applied an unwritten policy banning mentions of a name when connected with a 

complaint about that individual. Rodriguez wrote:

[M]entioning a name is not against the rules. Making a 

complaint about an individual by name or title is. I had to wait 

until he made a complaint to stop him. The same applies to the 

lady that mentioned the name of the principal three times. She 

was expressing support, and that was within the rules. I will 
– 6 –

explain this again before the next Open Forum. Fortunately 

62 out of 63 speakers played by the rules.

20. Rodriguez was motivated to silence Ryan because of his personal animosity 

against Ryan as well as on account of Ryan’s race. Ryan is a white man while Rodriguez is 

Hispanic. Rodriguez has stated repeatedly that he does not respect Ryan’s opinions on 

issues involving race, believes Ryan has “no idea what minorities go [through] in this 

country” and believes that Ryan is on a “witch hunt mission” to destroy GCISD. Ryan 

has been active in raising public attention on GCISD’s agenda regarding critical race 

theory. Ryan and Rodriguez have also worked on the opposite side of local school board 

elections, with Rodriguez referring to Ryan as a “very tough opponent.”

21. Following the filing of this lawsuit and an evidentiary hearing on a Motion 

for Preliminary Injunction, GCISD adopted revised speech prohibitions at its October 25, 

2021 meeting that broadened the scope and topics of speech banned during the open 

public forum period of GCISD meetings. The new speech prohibitions state:

“Attacks of a personal nature will not be allowed or tolerated 

against any individual. Attacks of a personal nature include 

comments impugning an identified person’s integrity, 

honesty, character, immutable characteristics, or like 

personal qualities, accusations of criminal conduct, name 

calling, threats, fighting words, ridicule, mocking, or 

shaming.”

22. The revised speech prohibitions also state: “The Public Comment period is 

not intended for the presentation of allegations of employee misconduct; requests for 

employee discipline; lodging personal attacks, shaming, or demeaning specific named 
– 7 –

GCISD employees; or unnecessarily disclosing private information about GCISD 

employees or students.”

23. Ryan attended the October 25, 2021 meeting and spoke during the open 

public forum period. When he attempted to encourage the board of trustees to not renew 

Principal Whitfield’s contract, President Rodriguez loudly interrupted Ryan by gaveling 

him, and warned Ryan that he “know[s] the rules.” Despite this reprimand of Ryan for 

calling for non-renewal of Principal Whitfield’s contract during the October 25 meeting, 

GCISD allowed numerous other speakers to offer virtually identical comments calling for 

Whitfield’s contract to be terminated at a special meeting on the matter held on 

November 8, 2021. At the November 8 meeting, GCISD was considering an agreed

settlement with Whitfield and so it is possible the speakers were allowed to call for 

Whitfield’s termination because the matter was nearly resolved at that juncture. 

Alternatively, this inconsistency may simply evidence President Rodriguez’s animosity 

toward Ryan and use of the rules to silence Ryan while allowing similar comments from 

other speakers.

24. Ryan intends to attend future GCISD board meetings. Because of the 

District’s revised speech prohibitions, Ryan will be forced to limit his comments to the 

board of trustees. Moreover, based on the District’s pattern of behavior and President 

Rodriguez’s personal animosity toward him, Ryan expects that the rules will be unfairly 

applied to limit his speech when such rules are not routinely applied to limit the speech of 

other individuals.
– 8 –

25. Ryan suffered an irreparable injury at the August GCISD board meeting and 

will suffer an irreparable injury at upcoming meetings absent court intervention.

Count I

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988

Violation of Ryan’s First Amendment Rights at the August Meeting

26. Ryan repeats and re-alleges each of the foregoing allegations in this Verified 

First Amended Complaint.

27. The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . 

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” U.S. CONST. amend. I. “[T]he First 

Amendment is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth [Amendment.]” First Nat’l 

Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 778 (1978).

28. In this case, GCISD has created a designated public forum during the open 

public forum period of its meetings for the public to share their views with the GCISD 

board of trustees. Accordingly, Ryan had a First-Amended-protected right to share his 

views during the forum. However, Ryan’s speech was cut off by President Rodriguez, 

both through the application of the District’s content-based speech prohibitions, as well 

as through Rodriguez’s personal targeting of Ryan on account of Rodriguez’s personal 

animosity toward Ryan.

29. “In the First Amendment context” the Supreme Court “recognizes ‘a . . . 

type of facial challenge,’ whereby a law may be invalidated as overbroad if ‘a substantial 

number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly 

legitimate sweep.’” U.S. v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 473 (2010), citing Washington State 

Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449 n.6 (2008) (emphasis 
– 9 –

added). Here the policies in place during GCISD’s August board meeting “create[d] a [] 

prohibition of alarming breadth.” Stevens, 559 U.S. at 474. The policies prohibited 

certain speech content, most basically the mentioning of employee names, but also 

“attacks of a personal nature” against employees, GCISD board members themselves, as 

well as others in the community. Lacking a definition of “attacks of a personal nature,” 

the prohibition swept broadly to prohibit any speech regarding any person that President 

Rodriguez found objectionable.

30. The prohibition against Ryan speaking on certain topics to the board, 

including the names of district officials, was a content-based speech restriction and is 

presumptively unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s precedent in Reed v. Town of 

Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015). There are no legitimate applications of the policy, the 

policy’s sweep is plainly illegitimate, and therefore a facial challenge is appropriate. 

31. The speech prohibitions were also unconstitutional as applied to Ryan in 

that they were used by President Rodriguez to target Ryan and to silence his speech based 

on President Rodriguez’s personal animosity toward Ryan.

32. Moreover, President Rodriguez’s application of the speech prohibitions to 

prohibit criticism, but not praise, of district employees is an example of viewpoint 

discrimination. Viewpoint discrimination is “a more blatant and egregious form of 

content discrimination.” Id. at 168. Disallowing Ryan’s comments critical of Principal 

Whitfield while refusing to enforce the District’s speech prohibitions as written against 

speakers who mentioned Principal Whitfield’s name but spoke in favor of him was a 

further violation of Ryan’s First Amendment rights.
– 10 –

33. Defendants had no compelling interest in prohibiting citizens from 

including the names of district employees in the content of their speech during the open 

public forum portion of GCISD meetings, or prohibiting criticism of district employees, or 

suppressing Ryan’s speech in particular, or otherwise restricting the content of citizens’ 

speech in any way during that portion of the meeting.

34. Defendants have imposed unconstitutional content-based and viewpointmotivated speech restrictions while acting under color of state law. As a direct and 

proximate consequence of the Defendants’ actions, Ryan has suffered an injury and is 

entitled to nominal and compensatory damages based on Defendants’ violations of Ryan’s 

rights at the August board meeting.

35. Ryan is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

Count II

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988

Ongoing Violation of Ryan’s First Amendment Rights Under Revised Speech 

Prohibitions

36. Ryan repeats and re-alleges each of the foregoing allegations in this Verified 

First Amended Complaint.

37. After the filing of this lawsuit, Defendants have revised their speech 

prohibitions applied to citizens during the open public forum period of GCISD board 

meetings. These revised speech prohibitions violate the First Amendment for the same 

reasons that the policies in place during the August board meeting violated the First 

Amendment. Instead of repealing the existing policies prohibiting personal attacks or 

complaints about District employees, Defendants have substantially broadened it.
– 11 –

38. The revised speech prohibitions now prohibit “impugning an identified 

person’s integrity, honesty, character, immutable characteristics, or like personal 

qualities, accusations of criminal conduct, name calling, threats, fighting words, ridicule, 

mocking, or shaming.” While prohibitions against “threats” and “fighting words” might 

sometimes be permissible as describing speech outside the protection of the First 

Amendment, these prohibitions are unconstitutionally vague and undefined, and therefore 

can potentially be used to prohibit speech permissible under the First Amendment. The 

other elements of the policy clearly prohibit protected speech. Indeed, under the plain 

language of the policy, the policy would appear to prohibit a citizen from saying: 

“President Rodriguez, you should be ashamed of yourself.” This is but one example of the

unconstitutional breadth of the prohibitions.

39. More alarmingly, the policy appears to prohibit citizens from bringing 

criminal conduct to the attention of the board of trustees during the open public forum 

period. This could have alarming consequences, as has been witnessed in other states 

where citizens have been arrested for attempting to confront school officials over crimes 

committed at school against their children.

40. Likewise, the new policy appears to also prohibit “allegations of employee 

misconduct; requests for employee discipline” . . . “demeaning specific named GCISD 

employees,” and “unnecessarily disclosing private information about GCISD employees 

or students.”

41. These revised speech prohibitions are unconstitutionally overbroad. They 

prohibit citizens, like Ryan, from calling for a school official like Principal Whitfield to be 
– 12 –

fired or even from bringing their complaints about these officials’ performance to the 

attention of district trustees. Indeed, the revised speech prohibitions were apparently 

applied against Ryan during the October 25, 2021 GCISD board meeting, although 

comments calling for the termination of Principal Whitfield’s contract were tolerated in a 

subsequent meeting. These revised speech prohibitions are also unconstitutionally vague. 

They prohibit comments that are “demeaning” as well as comments that “unnecessarily 

disclose” private information. There is simply no touchstone as to what type of comments 

would be construed as “demeaning” or what kind of disclosure of “private information” 

would be determined to be unnecessary.

42. Defendants have no compelling interest in imposing content and viewpointbased speech prohibitions on citizens during its open public forum period. 

43. Defendants are imposing unconstitutional content-based and viewpointbased speech restrictions while acting under color of state law. If the revised speech 

prohibitions continue to be enforced at GCISD board meetings, Ryan will continue to 

suffer irreparable injury at each meeting where he is prohibited from freely sharing his 

views during the open public forum period. Ryan is entitled to a preliminary and 

permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from enforcing the revised speech 

prohibitions against him.

44. Ryan is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
– 13 –

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Mitchell Ryan respectfully requests this Court enter 

judgment in his favor and against Defendants and provide the following relief:

A. Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 

the enforcement of GCISD’s revised content-based and viewpoint-based speech 

prohibitions during the District’s open public forum period;

B. Nominal damages on account of Defendants’ past violations of Ryan’s First 

Amendment Rights;

C. Compensatory damages on account of Defendants’ past violations of Ryan’s First

Amendment Rights;

D. Ryan’s reasonable costs and expenses of this action, including attorneys’ fees, in 

accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and all other applicable laws; and

E. Any and all other further relief to which Ryan may be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

THE LAW OFFICES OF TONY MCDONALD

By: /s/ Tony McDonald 

Tony McDonald

State Bar No. 24083477

tony@tonymcdonald.com

Garrett McMillan

State Bar No. 24116747

garrett@tonymcdonald.com

1501 Leander Dr., Ste. B2

Leander, TX 78641

(512) 200-3608 (Tel)

(815) 550-1292 (Fax)

Counsel for Plaintiff