UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

MITCHELL RYAN,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 4:21-cv-1075-P

GRAPEVINE–COLLEYVILLE INDEPENDENT 

SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Mitchell Ryan’s Motion for Temporary 

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (“Motion”), which is 

premised on the theory that the current Open Forum Policies (“current

Forum Policies”) at Grapevine–Colleyville Independent School District 

(“GCISD”) violate the First Amendment and should be enjoined to 

prevent future violations. ECF No. 3. During the Motion’s evidentiary 

hearing, however, GCISD made numerous, credible representations 

that the current Forum Policies would be replaced with a new Open 

Forum Policy (“proposed Forum Policy”) at the regular board meeting 

scheduled for Monday, October 25, 2021. Thus, as explained below, the 

Court DEFERS ruling on the Motion.

On September 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint and the instant 

Motion. See ECF Nos. 1–3. Following expedited briefing and oral 

argument, the Court denied the Motion as to the Temporary Restraining 

Order. See ECF No. 17. In its Order denying the Motion (“TRO Order”), 

the Court noted, amongst other things, its grave concerns regarding the 

current Forum Policies—concerns that have yet to be remedied—and 

scheduled a full evidentiary hearing on the Motion as to the Preliminary 

Injunction. Id.

Prior to that hearing, Defendants filed a Motion for a Continuance 

(“Continuance Motion”) asserting—for the first time—that GCISD was 

Case 4:21-cv-01075-P Document 33 Filed 10/25/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID 310
2 

attempting to revise its current Forum Policies in an attempt to address 

the Court’s concerns. See ECF No. 26. Although Defendants attached 

the proposed Forum Policy to the Motion, Defendants failed to submit 

any affidavits providing assurances that the proposed Forum Policy 

would, in fact, be adopted at the next regular board meeting. The Court 

therefore denied the Continuance Motion. See ECF No. 27. 

At the evidentiary hearing, however, Defendants continued to 

represent that the current Forum Policies would be replaced by the 

proposed Forum Policy.1 Because of the numerous, credible 

representations that the current Forum Policy will be changed at the 

next regular board meeting, the Court therefore defers ruling on the 

Motion as to the Preliminary Injunction.2 In the Court’s view, it would 

be imprudent to opine on the Motion when Defendants—through 

counsel and GCISD representatives—have continued to represent that 

the proposed Forum Policy will be enacted the same day the Court would 

issue its ruling. Instead, the Court concludes that it would be beneficial 

for all Parties, including the Court, to pause the proceedings until the 

proposed Forum Policy is enacted so that the Court can consider a final 

definitive policy, which necessarily includes any guidelines3 used to 

explain the proposed Forum Policy.

1Defendants submitted the proposed Forum Policy to the Court as an 

exhibit. See ECF No. 29-10, at 22.

2The Court also notes that Plaintiff Mitchell Ryan failed to speak at the 

September 27, 2021 regular board meeting, which cuts against any assertion 

that the Motion must be adjudicated prior to the regular board meeting 

scheduled for October 25, 2021. 

3In its TRO Order, the Court noted that it was unclear which policy or 

polices—including guidelines—were at issue. See ECF No. 17, at 2 n.2. 

Following the evidentiary hearing, the Court now understands that 

“guidelines”—e.g., the current Board Decorum Policy, ECF No. 29-4, at 11—

are documents drafted to explain the “Forum Policies” to any citizen that may 

attend a GCISD Board Meeting. Thus, “guidelines” are derived from the 

“Forum Policies” and do not expand or alter the underlying “Forum Policy.” 

Accordingly, the Court considers all current guidelines and current Forum 

Policies to be placed in issue since the Guidelines are merely explaining the 

requirements of the current Forum Policy.

Case 4:21-cv-01075-P Document 33 Filed 10/25/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID 311
3 

While the Court is deferring its ruling on the Motion as to a 

Preliminary Injunction, the Court is compelled to add that based on 

witness testimony and other representations at the evidentiary hearing, 

Plaintiff Mitchell Ryan—and other citizens—should be confident that 

their speech will not arbitrarily be chilled at the next regular board 

meeting. To that end, Defendants repeatedly represented that citizens 

are free to voice support or criticism during the open forum portion of a 

regular board meeting.4 Thus, because citizens are free to express either 

support or criticism in the open forum—even under the language of the 

current Forum Policy—the Court is confident that only those that 

attempt to cause disruptions and incivility will have their actions

restrained. Of course, the Court is likewise confident that the citizens 

attending the next regular board meeting will lodge their comments—

whether positive or negative—in a respectful and civil manner. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DEFERS ruling on Plaintiff’s 

Motion as to the Preliminary Injunction. The Court therefore ORDERS 

Defendants to submit a status report apprising the Court of the outcome 

of the vote on the proposed Forum Policy on or before October 28, 

2021. This status report shall include the new Forum Policy as an 

attachment. Further, because the existing guidelines—which merely 

explain the current Forum Policy—will likely need to be revised, 

Defendants shall submit any revised guidelines that GCISD intends to 

promulgate before the regular November board meeting as soon as 

practicable. After reviewing the status report and its attachments, the 

4During the evidentiary hearing, the Court sought clarification as to 

whether citizens can use specific names when commenting—whether it be 

support or criticism. Based on Defendants’ clarification, the Court understands 

the current Forum Policies to bar specific names only when a citizen’s 

comments are urging the Board to undertake an adverse action against that 

individual. Accordingly, Defendants represented that citizens, who are offering 

criticism without calling for an adverse action, can use a specific name, if so 

desired. 

Case 4:21-cv-01075-P Document 33 Filed 10/25/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID 312
4 

Court will direct the Parties as to how the Court intends to continue the 

present litigation.5 

SO ORDERED on this 25th day of October, 2021. 

5The Court notes that should Plaintiff desire to file an amended complaint 

to include claims and/or seek injunctive relief arising out of the New Policy 

adopted by GCISD—and the subsequent Guidelines—the Court will freely 

grant leave to file an amended complaint.

Mark T. Pittman 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 4:21-cv-01075-P Document 33 Filed 10/25/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID 313