1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

Chasity Congious, by and through )

her Guardian, Kimberly Hammond, )

on behalf of herself and as Mother and )

Next Friend of Z.C.H., Deceased, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 4:22-cv-00092-O 

)

City of Fort Worth, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Chasity Congious (“Plaintiff” or Chasity”) respectfully submits this brief 

in support of her Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) motion for relief from the 

Final Judgment as to Defendant Dr. Aaron Ivy Shaw (“Dr. Shaw”). 

Introduction

This case arises out of a terrible and preventable tragedy. Chasity, who was an 

inmate in the Female Infirmary at the Tarrant County Jail (“TCJ”), was left alone in her 

cell on May 17, 2020 to give birth without any medical care. As a result, Chasity lost her 

baby. While nothing can bring back the innocent baby, Chasity brought a denial of 

medical care against Dr. Shaw (who was in charge of her medical care) in an attempt to 

receive some measure of justice. 

The Court granted the motion to dismiss brought by Dr. Shaw, deciding that 

there was no evidence that Dr. Shaw knew that Chasity was in pain on the morning she 

gave birth and refused her medical care. Now, Plaintiff has newly discovered evidence

Case 4:22-cv-00092-O Document 93 Filed 04/02/24 Page 1 of 7 PageID 1025
2

obtained at the end of discovery – in the form of an email to Dr. Shaw – showing that

Dr. Shaw in fact knew that Chasity was in pain and in labor on the morning she gave 

birth. If Dr. Shaw had acted on this knowledge, Chasity’s baby would be alive and this 

case would not exist. Shockingly, Dr. Shaw did nothing and Chasity’s baby died.

Plaintiff did not have the email to Dr. Shaw prior to bringing this case because 

discovery had not begun. If Plaintiff would have had the email and included the facts 

from the email in the Amended Complaint, the Court would have denied Dr. Shaw’s 

motion to dismiss. The Court therefore should grant Plaintiff’s motion for relief from 

the Final Judgment and give Chasity the opportunity to seek justice from Dr. Shaw. 

Relevant Procedural History and the Newly Discovered Evidence

On March 31, 2023, the Court granted Dr. Shaw’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s 

denial of medical care claim on the grounds of qualified immunity. ECF No. 61 at 19-22. 

The Court found that Dr. Shaw was not deliberately indifferent by depriving Chasity of 

medical care on the morning of May 17, 2020. Id. In particular, the Court stated that 

“there is no evidence that Dr. Shaw ever knew that Plaintiff was experiencing untreated 

pain, nor is there evidence that he sent her away when she personally approached him 

seeking relief.” Id. at 22. The Court entered a Final Judgment as to Dr. Shaw on April 3, 

2023. ECF No. 62.

While the Court granted Dr. Shaw and other Defendants’ motions to dismiss, 

the Court denied Defendant Tarrant County’s (“the County”) motion to dismiss 

Plaintiff’s unsafe conditions of confinement and Americans with Disabilities Act and 

Rehabilitation Act claims. ECF No. 61 at 33. Discovery on Plaintiff’s claims against the 

Case 4:22-cv-00092-O Document 93 Filed 04/02/24 Page 2 of 7 PageID 1026
3

County proceeded in advance of the discovery end date of January 12, 2024. ECF No. 65 

at 1. 

Towards the end of discovery in December 2023, the County produced an email

received by Dr. Shaw on May 17, 2020 at 7:29 AM. Appendix at 3, ¶ 3. The email

contained a daily report for the inmates in the Female Infirmary at the TCJ. Id. at 5. With 

respect to Chasity, the daily report stated “took PM ENSRE but Refused Breakfast C/O 

ABD CRAMPS.” Id. at 8 (emphasis added). Dr. Shaw therefore knew on the morning of

May 17, 2020 at 7:29 AM – prior to when Chasity gave birth – that she was complaining 

of abdominal cramps.

In preparation for the expert disclosures in this case, Plaintiff retained David A. 

Gutman, M.D., M.B.A. to provide expert testimony. Appendix at 9. After reviewing the 

pertinent records. Dr. Gutman formed several opinions. Id. at 9-14. Relevant to this 

motion, Dr. Gutman opined that Chasity’s abdominal cramps on the morning she gave 

birth were uterine contractions from being in labor. Id. at 12. Dr. Shaw therefore knew 

on May 17, 2020 at 7:29 – prior to when Chasity gave birth – not only that Chasity was 

in pain but also that she was in labor. 

There is no evidence that Dr. Shaw took any action in response to receiving the 

email on May 17, 2020 at 7:29 AM notifying him that Chasity was in pain and in labor.

Approximately an hour and a half after Dr. Shaw received the email, a TCJ employee 

checked on Chasity and reported nothing wrong. Appendix at 15. About 10 minutes 

later, blood was observed on Chasity. Id. Chasity had given birth alone in her cell 

without any medical assistance. Id. 

Case 4:22-cv-00092-O Document 93 Filed 04/02/24 Page 3 of 7 PageID 1027
4

Argument

I. Plaintiff Satisfies the Standard for Relief from a Final Judgment on the 

Grounds of Newly Discovered Evidence.

The Court may relieve a party from a final judgment when there is “newly 

discovery evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in 

time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2). To prevail on a 

Rule 60(b)(2) motion, “a movant must demonstrate: (1) that it exercised due diligence 

in obtaining the information; and (2) that the evidence is material and controlling and 

clearly would have produced a different result if present before the original judgment.”

Doe v. Keller Independent School District, No. 4:21-cv-01094-O, 2023 WL 2711629, *4 (N.D. 

Tex. Mar. 30, 2023) (quotation marks and quotations omitted). In this case, Plaintiff can 

make the two demonstrations required by the Doe decision. 

First, Plaintiff exercised due diligence in obtaining the newly discovered 

evidence. Plaintiff did not obtain the May 17, 2020 email received by Dr. Shaw until

December 2023 when it was produced by the County in discovery, which was well after 

the Court’s decision on Dr. Shaw’s motion to dismiss on March 31, 2023. Appendix at 3, 

¶ 3; ECF No. 61. And there would have been no way for Plaintiff to obtain the email 

prior to the Court’s decision on Dr. Shaw’s motion to dismiss, because discovery had 

not begun.

Second, the May 17, 2020 email received Dr. Shaw is material, controlling, and 

would have produced a different result on the motion to dismiss decision. The Court 

granted Dr. Shaw’s motion to dismiss because there was no evidence that Dr. Shaw 

knew that Plaintiff was in pain and refused her treatment. ECF No. 61 at 22. If Plaintiff 

Case 4:22-cv-00092-O Document 93 Filed 04/02/24 Page 4 of 7 PageID 1028
5

had the May 17, 2020 email received Dr. Shaw prior to commencing this action, Plaintiff 

would have alleged in her Amended Complaint that Dr. Shaw knew that Chasity was 

having abdominal cramps and that she was in labor on the morning of May 17, 2020 

prior to when she gave birth. And Chasity would have known that Dr. Shaw refused 

her treatment on May 17, 2020, because he took no action in response to the email. The 

reason for the Court granting Dr. Shaw’s motion to dismiss therefore would not exist, 

and Plaintiff would have prevailed on the motion. 

Thus, Plaintiff exercised due diligence in obtaining the May 17, 2020 email 

received by Dr. Shaw and the email would have produced a different result on Dr. 

Shaw’s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court should grant Plaintiff relief from the 

Final Judgment as to Dr. Shaw. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2); Doe, 2023 WL 2711629 at *4. 

II. There Is No Unfair Prejudice to Dr. Shaw in Granting Plaintiff Relief from 

the Final Judgment.

In response to this motion, Dr. Shaw may argue that he somehow would be 

unfairly prejudiced if the Final Judgment is set aside. The Court should reject any such 

argument. Dr. Shaw obviously knew of Plaintiff’s newly discovered evidence because it

consists of an email to him. Indeed, it is troubling that Dr. Shaw accepted the Court’s 

decision dismissing Plaintiff’s denial of medical care claim while knowing that the 

decision was premised on incorrect facts. Dr. Shaw certainly cannot be unfairly 

prejudiced based upon facts of which he was already aware.

By contrast, Plaintiff would suffer severe prejudice if the motion for relief from 

the Final Judgment as to Dr. Shaw is denied. The Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s denial 

of medical care claim without giving Plaintiff a chance to obtain discovery from Dr. 

Case 4:22-cv-00092-O Document 93 Filed 04/02/24 Page 5 of 7 PageID 1029
6

Shaw. It is horrifying that Chasity lost her baby due to the denial of medical care by Dr. 

Shaw. The injustice inflicted upon Chasity should not be compounded by refusing her 

the opportunity to conduct discovery and receive a proper decision on the merits of her

denial of medical care claim against Dr. Shaw. 

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court 

grant the motion for relief from Final Judgment as to Dr. Shaw. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jarrett Adams

Jarrett Adams, Esq.

LAW OFFICES OF JARRETT ADAMS, PLLC

40 Fulton St., Floor 28

New York, New York 10038

T: 646.880.9707

F: 646.880.9707

E: JAdams@JarrettAdamsLaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 4:22-cv-00092-O Document 93 Filed 04/02/24 Page 6 of 7 PageID 1030
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 2, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing pleading 

with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas using the 

CM/ECF system, which will automatically serve a true and complete copy upon all 

counsel of record. 

/s/Jarrett Adams

Jarrett Adams, Esq.

Case 4:22-cv-00092-O Document 93 Filed 04/02/24 Page 7 of 7 PageID 1031