Filed Date: March 19, 2018
Closed Date: April 22, 2019
Clearinghouse coding complete
On March 19, 2018, a criminal defense attorney in Galveston, Texas, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. He sued a Galveston County Court judge under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff, represented by the Civil Rights Corps, requested declaratory and injunctive relief together with attorney's fees. He claimed that the defendant judge had retaliated against him for speaking out against abusive practices in the Galveston County criminal justice system in violation of his First Amendment rights.
According to Muting Gideon's Trumpet: The Crisis in Indigent Criminal Defense in Texas, indigent defendants in Texas struggle to obtain competent representation. Judges frequently appoint defense lawyers based on their reputations for moving cases along quickly, personal friendship, or political support. In the early 21st Century, the state adopted the Texas Fair Defense Act (TFDA) to standardize how courts appoint lawyers for indigent defendants. Under TFDA, judges appoint the lawyer whose name appears at the top of a rotating list.
The plaintiff provided criminal defense services to indigent defendants in Galveston, Texas. The defendant judge appointed him to represent several indigent defendants under TFDA. In one case, the plaintiff hired a third party investigator to interview witnesses. In others, he challenged the constitutionality of jailing defendants who could not afford bail. Later, the plaintiff complained to the Texas Indigent Defense Commission about several abusive practices in the Galveston criminal justice system.
The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant judge quickly broke down. The complaint alleged that the defendant judge refused to authorize the plaintiff to spend funds he requested for additional investigators. The judge also cut back on the plaintiff's compensation, citing the plaintiff's "excessive out of court hours." Eventually, the defendant judge removed the plaintiff from all but one of his cases and, with one exception, stopped assigning him to new cases.
In response, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit against the defendant judge for retaliation in violation of the plaintiff's First Amendment rights. The defendant judge promptly moved to dismiss the case. First, he argued that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring a claim on behalf of indigent defendants. Second, he argued that the complaint was too vague and speculatory to state a claim for retaliation.
On December 17, 2018, Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison issued a report and recommendation granting in part and denying in part the defendant judge's motion to dismiss. Judge Edison rejected the defendant judge's argument that the plaintiff lacked standing as "predicated on an inaccurate summation" of the complaint, which alleged harm to the plaintiff rather than the plaintiff's clients. He also found that the plaintiff had properly pleaded the elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim: (1) an adverse employment action; (2) speech involving a matter of public concern; (3) the public interest in disclosure outweighed the defendant's interest in efficiency; and (4) the speech was a substantial factor in the adverse employment action.
Nevertheless, Judge Edison recommended that the plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief and attorney's fees be dismissed under Davis v. Tarrant. In Davis, the Fifth Circuit held that appointing an attorney under TFDA is a judicial act, so judges enjoy broad immunity from suits brought under § 1983 for violations of TFDA. District Judge George C. Hanks, Jr. signed an order adopting the Magistrate's recommendations on January 24, 2019.
The plaintiff pressed on with his claim for declaratory relief. On April 4, 2019, the parties notified the court of third party mediation and soon reached a settlement. The settlement provided that:
Related Opinions:
2018 WL 7115180
2019 WL 313432
Summary Authors
Timothy Leake (5/26/2019)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6349187/parties/willey-v-ewing/
Edison, Andrew M (Texas)
Hanks, George Carol Jr. (Texas)
Gerstein, Charles L. (District of Columbia)
Halperin, Eric I. (District of Columbia)
Lowenberg, Michael Jude (Texas)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6349187/willey-v-ewing/
Last updated April 1, 2026, 5:25 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 19, 2018
Closing Date: April 22, 2019
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Criminal defense lawyer who represented indigent defendants in Galveston, Texas.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Other
Judge
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Southern District of Texas 3:18-cv-00081
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Issues
General/Misc.:
Access to lawyers or judicial system
Case Summary of Willey v. Ewing, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/17196/ (last updated 5/26/2019).