Little Et Al Vs Llano County Officials

Case 5:22-cv-00400-JKP Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 1 of 31
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
LEILA GREEN LITTLE, JEANNE § Civil Action No. 5:22-cv-400

PURYEAR, KATHY KENNEDY, §
REBECCA JONES, RICHARD DAY, §
CYNTHIA WARING, AND DIANE § COMPLAINT
MOSTER, §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. §
§
LLANO COUNTY, RON §
CUNNINGHAM, in his official capacity §
as Llano County Judge, JERRY DON §
MOSS, in his official capacity as Llano §
County Commissioner, PETER JONES, in §
his official capacity as Llano County §
Commissioner, MIKE SANDOVAL, in §
his official capacity as Llano County §
Commissioner, LINDA RASCHKE, in her §
official capacity as Llano County §
Commissioner, AMBER MILUM, in her §
official capacity as Llano County Library §
System Director, BONNIE WALLACE, in §
her official capacity as Llano County §
Library Board Member, ROCHELLE §
WELLS, in her official capacity as Llano §
County Library Board Member, RHONDA §
SCHNEIDER, in her official capacity as §
Llano County Library Board Member, and §
GAY BASKIN, in her official capacity as §
Llano County Library Board Member, §
§
Defendants. §
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiffs are adult residents of Llano County and visitors, users, card-carrying
members, and ardent supporters of Llano County’s public libraries. More than a gathering space
1
for topical lectures, group meetings, and crafting projects, Llano County’s public libraries
provide Plaintiffs and other community members with a quiet and contemplative space to
explore the marketplace of ideas and pursue the knowledge contained within the books on library
shelves. Though Plaintiffs differ in their ages, professions, and individual religious and political
beliefs, they are fiercely united in their love for reading public library books and in their belief
that the government cannot dictate which books they can and cannot read.
2. Defendants are Llano County public officials who control which books are
available at Llano County public libraries. Notwithstanding Llano County’s library collection
policy, which provides that “in no case should any book be excluded because of race or
nationality or the political or religious views of the writer,” and that “there should be the fullest
practicable provision of material presenting all points of view concerning the problems and
issues of our times,” Defendants have been systematically removing award-winning books from
library shelves because they disagree with the ideas within them. Defendants have also
permanently terminated access to over 17,000 digital books because they could not censor and
ban two specific ebooks that they disliked from the County’s digital book collection.
3. The censorship that Defendants have imposed on Llano County public libraries is
offensive to the First Amendment and strikes at the core of democracy. The right to publish and
receive ideas—even politically unpopular ideas or ones that some find offensive or distasteful—
is enshrined in our Constitution. As the Supreme Court has said, “freedom of thought and speech
‘is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.’” Fed.
Election Comm’n v. Mass. Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238, 264 (1986) (citation omitted).
4. Publicly, Defendants claim to be on a hunt to eradicate “pornographic” materials.
This is a pretext; none of the books Defendants have targeted is pornographic. Many of these
books have received prestigious literary awards and national acclaim, and many involve
contemporary political issues. Such books include, for example, Caste: The Origins of Our
Discontent, by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Isabel Wilkerson, They Called Themselves the
K.K.K.: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group, by Susan Campbell Bartoletti, and Spinning,
2
by Eisner Award winner Tillie Walden. Privately, Defendants have admitted that they are
banning books because they disagree with their political viewpoints and dislike their subject
matter.
5. But even books that are not nationally acclaimed should not be banned because of
their content or viewpoint. The First Amendment exists “to protect unpopular individuals from
retaliation—and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society.” McIntyre v.
Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995). “If there is any fixed star in our
constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be
orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion[.]” West Virginia State
Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). Unfortunately, Defendants have done
just that—prescribed which public library books Llano County residents can and cannot read
based on the viewpoints and ideas contained within those books.
6. Public libraries are not places of government indoctrination. They are not places
where the people in power can dictate what their citizens are permitted to read about and learn.
When government actors target public library books because they disagree with and intend to
suppress the ideas contained within them, it jeopardizes the freedoms of everyone.
7. Each day that Defendants are censoring books at Llano County public libraries,
Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable injury. Plaintiffs bring this action for prospective injunctive
relief to end Defendants’ efforts to monopolize the marketplace of ideas, and to ensure that once
again there will “be the fullest practicable provision of material presenting all points of view
concerning the problems and issues of our times,” for all Llano County library patrons.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343
because this action is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seeks to vindicate rights protected by
the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
9. This Court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 to grant
declaratory relief.
3
10. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendants
reside within and/or perform official duties within the Western District of Texas. This Court,
accordingly, has personal jurisdiction over Defendants.
THE PARTIES
A. Plaintiffs
11. Plaintiffs read library books for their personal and professional enrichment and
enjoyment. They are also members of social book clubs as well as non-profit community groups
dedicated to fundraising for and supporting Llano County’s public libraries. Plaintiffs check out
and read books on a wide variety of topics, including both fiction and nonfiction titles, and at
various reading levels, including adult, young adult, and children’s books. Some Plaintiffs also
check out children’s books to read to and with their children and grandchildren.
12. Plaintiff Leila Green Little resides in Llano County and comes from generations
of Llano County public library patrons and enthusiasts. As a result, public libraries have been an
extremely important part of her life, from childhood throughout college, during her career, and
especially now as a parent. She takes her children to activities at all branches of the Llano
County Library System, reads to and with her children daily, and has a current penchant for
nonfiction books.
13. Plaintiff Jeanne Puryear has resided in Llano County for two decades and has
been a card-carrying member of the Llano County Library System ever since. When she moved
to Llano County in the early 2000s, she quickly found community in the County’s public
libraries. She has been a faithful patron of libraries since childhood and was pleasantly surprised
to learn that Llano County’s public libraries offered even more opportunities for reading and
social engagement than the libraries she patronized before arriving here. She considers the public
library her home away from home and reads an assortment of books.
14. Plaintiff Kathy Kennedy has been a resident of Llano County for fifteen years,
and obtained her Llano County public library card shortly after arriving. She has been a book
lover since her childhood, and has fond memories of reading classics such as 1984, Fahrenheit
4
451, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Brave New World with a very special teacher who encouraged
her to read all kinds of books. She continues to be an avid reader and lover of books.
15. Plaintiff Rebecca Jones has lived in Llano County for over two decades. Shortly
after moving to Llano, she met her first local friends at and became a card-carrying member of
the Llano County public library. She was raised in a home where no book was forbidden, and her
mom would express interest in and initiate frequent discussions about her book selections from
the local public library. As a voracious reader of both fiction and nonfiction, she takes her out-of-
town visitors to experience Llano County’s public libraries along with her.
16. Plaintiff Richard Day is a retired physician. He has resided in Llano County for
seven years and checks out books in the Llano County Library System. Before attending medical
school, he received a master’s degree in Library and Information Science from the University of
Texas at Austin. He previously worked as a rare book cataloger at the Moody Medical Library at
the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston. He also worked at the University of Texas
Health Sciences Center at San Antonio as the head of cataloging, a reference librarian, and as
medical liaison librarian to the pediatrics department.
17. Plaintiff Cynthia Waring toured Llano County’s public libraries even before
moving there. Eight years ago, she got her Llano County library card promptly after closing on
her house. She was seven years old when she discovered that libraries, books, and kind librarians
were a refuge from the storm of her home life, and has carried this regard for libraries ever since.
She is an active patron of the public libraries in Llano County and supports several local
organizations that help fundraise for Llano County’s public libraries.
18. Plaintiff Diane Moster moved to Llano County five years ago, and one of the first
things she did was join the public library. She is an avid reader, and checks out library books on
a variety of subjects, including gardening, cooking, history, and fiction. She takes her
grandchildren to the public libraries every time they visit her in Llano County.
5
B. Defendants
19. Defendants are (i) Llano County; (ii) the members of the Llano County
Commissioners Court, which is the municipal entity that controls, among other things, which
books are available in Llano County libraries; (iii) the Llano County Library System Director,
who is also responsible for which books are provided in Llano County’s public libraries; and (iv)
members of the Llano County Library Board, an entity created by the Commissioners Court to,
among other things, effectuate the Commissioners Court’s policies. Defendants are being sued in
their official capacities.
20. In particular, Defendant Ron Cunningham is an elected official and final
policymaker that serves as the head of the Llano County Commissioners Court. He is being sued
in his official capacity as Llano County Judge.
21. Defendants Jerry Don Moss, Peter Jones, Mike Sandoval, and Linda Raschke are
elected officials and final policymakers that serve on the Llano County Commissioners Court.
They are each being sued in their official capacities as Llano County Commissioners.
22. Under Texas law, the Llano County Library System is under the general
supervision of the Commissioners Court, and therefore, the general supervision of Defendants
Cunningham, Moss, Jones, Sandoval, and Raschke. See Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 323.006.
23. Defendant Amber Milum is the Llano County Library System Director. Under
Texas law, Defendant Milum is a final policymaker required to “develop and manage the library
in accordance with accepted rules of library management and [] determine which books and
library equipment will be purchased.” Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 323.005. She is being sued in her
official capacity as the Llano County Library System Director.
24. Defendants Bonnie Wallace, Rochelle Wells, Gay Baskin, and Rhonda Schneider
are appointed members of the County Library Board, which was created by the Commissioners
Court to create and effectuate County policy. Defendants Wallace, Wells, and Baskin do not
have degrees or prior professional experience in library sciences. Defendant Schneider
6
previously worked as the teen librarian at the County’s Llano Library Branch until mid-2021.
They are each being sued in their official capacities as Llano County Library Board members.
25. Defendants acted under color of state law to engage in viewpoint discrimination
in violation of the First Amendment by ordering the restriction and removal of library books that
they subjectively disagreed with or disliked.
26. Defendants also acted under color of state law to deprive Llano County citizens of
procedural due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by, among other things,
intentionally blocking public access to Library Board meetings, adopting and implementing
library collection and reconsideration policies without final approval of the Commissioners
Court or the Llano County Library System Director, and denying the public of proper notice and
the opportunity to be heard before restricting and removing library books.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. The Llano County Library System

27. The public libraries in Llano County are the cultural heart of the Llano
community. These libraries provide spaces for residents of all different ages, professions, income
levels, values, beliefs, religions, and political affiliations to come together in quiet pursuit of
knowledge and the exploration of ideas.
28. The Llano County Library System has three libraries in three physical locations:
the Llano Library Branch (the main branch), the Kingsland Library Branch, and the Lakeshore
Library Branch.
29. Prior to the events giving rise to this lawsuit, the Llano County Library System
provided library cardholders with a digital catalog called “OverDrive,” which gave library
patrons access to a curated collection of over 17,000 digital ebooks and audiobook titles. This
service was widely and heavily used by the Llano community, particularly by elderly patrons
who struggle to read books in print and listen to audiobooks instead, as well as by patrons with
physical disabilities that make accessing a physical library location difficult.
7
30. Plaintiffs are card-carrying members and visitors of all three Llano County public
library branches. Many Plaintiffs also checked out ebooks and audiobooks on OverDrive before
Defendants permanently terminated access to it.
B. The Llano County Library System’s Materials Selection and Removal

Policies Are Viewpoint Neutral and Require a Breadth and Balance of Books
31. In August 2006, the Commissioners Court adopted the Llano County Library
System’s Materials Selection Policy (“Materials Policy”), which governs the process by which
librarians are to curate the books in the County’s library collection.
32. The stated goal of the Materials Policy is “maintain[ing] a well-balanced and
broad collection of materials for information, reference, research, and enjoyment” and
“support[ing] the democratic process by providing materials for the education and enlightenment
of the community.”
33. The Materials Policy also incorporates the American Library Association’s
Library Bill of Rights, which states, in part:

“In no case should any book be excluded because of race or nationality or the
political or religious views of the writer. There should be the fullest practicable
provision of material presenting all points of view concerning the problem and
issues of our times ... international, national and local; and media or other reading
material of sound factual authority should not be proscribed or removed from the
library shelves because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.”
34. Pursuant to the Materials Policy, “[r]esponsibility for the reading of children rests
with their parents or legal guardians. Selection should not be inhibited by the possibility that
media may inadvertently come into possession of children.” It continues that “[m]aterials with an
emphasis on sex, or containing profane language should not be automatically rejected. Selection
should be made on the basis of whether the media presents life in its true proportions, whether
characters and situations are realistically presented, and whether the media has literary value.”
35. In accordance with the Materials Policy, the Llano County Library System does
not and cannot select pornographic materials for its collection.
36. The Materials Policy also contains a provision governing requests to remove
particular library materials from Llano County’s collection. This provision states that a “patron’s
8
choice of library materials for personal use will be an individual matter,” and “[w]hile a person
may reject materials for himself or herself and for his or her children, he or she shall not exercise
censorship to restrict access to the materials by others.”
C. Defendants Embark on a Campaign of Censorship and Viewpoint

Discrimination
37. In or about the summer of 2021, Defendants initiated a coordinated censorship
campaign to remove and restrict access to a wide array of books—many of which have received
numerous national and international awards—in Llano County Library System’s physical and
digital collection in contravention of the County’s existing Materials Policy and Plaintiffs’ First
Amendment rights.
38. Defendants’ censorship campaign targeted books that conflicted with Defendants’
subjective opinions, as well as their political and religious views.
39. Defendants claimed that the goal of their censorship campaign was to protect the
community’s children from graphic sexual and “pornographic” materials. In reality, none of the
books targeted by Defendants is pornographic or obscene.
40. Before each of the books targeted by Defendants was made available to the
general public, it was assessed and vetted by a trained librarian in accordance with Llano County
Library System’s Materials Selection Policy and other professional standards created by the
American Library Association and the Texas Library Association. All of these standards and
policies prohibit the collection or distribution of pornographic or obscene materials.
41. Further evidence that Defendants’ actions were undertaken to censor ideas and
viewpoints with which they disagreed—and had nothing to do with protecting children from
nudity and “pornography”—lies in the many books that Defendants chose to leave on library
shelves, including books with: (i) depictions of nudity, such as the Art of Rembrandt, a reference
book in the Llano Library Branch that sits on a table in plain sight for public viewing; (ii) sexual
references, such as My Teen Has Had Sex, Now What Do I Do?; and (iii) graphic sex scenes,
9
such as A Game of Thrones, The Canterbury Tales, Lady Chatterley’s Lover, and books in the
Outlander series by Diana Gabaldon, including Outlander, Voyager, and The Fiery Cross.
42. Defendants implemented their censorship campaign by employing the following
tactics:
• removing books they disapproved of from library shelves;
• moving young adult and children’s books they disapproved of to the adult
section of the library;
• restricting access to books by hiding them out of sight behind the front desk or
in County employees’ offices;
• terminating OverDrive access permanently;1
• issuing an indefinite moratorium on all new book purchases;
• firing previous library board members and replacing them with ideologically
and politically aligned appointees (the “New Library Board”);
• tasking the ideologically motivated New Library Board with creating
amended collection and removal policies, and requiring the New Library
Board to pre-approve all future book purchases proposed by librarians;
• referring to the New Library Board as “advisory” in an attempt to evade
compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act (“TOMA”) and Texas Public
Information Act (“TPIA”);
• banning Llano County’s librarians from attending meetings of the New
Library Board;
• directing the New Library Board to operate behind closed doors outside of
public scrutiny;
1
Hereafter, all print titles that Defendants physically removed from library shelves, as well as the
two digital titles that resulted in Defendants’ permanent termination of OverDrive, will be
collectively referred to as the “Banned Books.”
10
• refusing to produce records related to their censorship campaign in response
to a properly served TPIA request; and
• firing the head librarian of Kingsland Library, Suzette Baker, for
“insubordination” after she questioned and refused to comply with
Defendants’ censorship requests.
D. Defendants Target and Remove Children’s Books

43. In or about August 2021, Defendants Amber Milum, Jerry Don Moss, and Ron
Cunningham removed several children’s picture books about bodily functions and depicting
nudity from the library’s collection in response to complaints from a group of community
members that these books were “inappropriate.” Among those who complained about the
children’s picture books were Defendants Rochelle Wells, Rhonda Schneider, and Bonnie
Wallace, who had not, at that time, been appointed to the New Library Board.
44. Children’s books that Defendants removed from the library include, for example,
Maurice Sendak’s In the Night Kitchen and Robie H. Harris’s It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing
Bodies, Growing Up, Sex, and Sexual Health.
45. In the Night Kitchen is a picture book featuring a boy’s dream journey through a
baker’s kitchen, where he helps bake a cake that must be ready by morning. He appears nude in
the book after falling out of his clothes and into a bowl of cake batter. The book has received
numerous awards, including the 1971 Caldecott Honor Book, the American Library
Association’s Notable Children’s Books of 1940-1970, and the Outstanding Children’s Books of
1970, and Best Illustrated Children’s Books of 1970 by the New York Times.
46. It’s Perfectly Normal is a well-known and award-winning sex education book
with color illustrations of the human body, designed for parents and children ages ten and older.
It is the product of the author’s extensive research and interviews with experts in the fields of
medicine, psychiatry, child development, education, and parenting. It deals with biological
subjects of immediate importance and concern to pre-teens and teenagers in an accurate,
11
thorough, balanced, and honest manner. It has received starred reviews2 from publications such
as School Library Journal, The Bulletin for the Center of Children’s Books, and Booklist, and
has won many awards, including an American Library Association Notable Book, a New York
Times Best Book of the Year, and a Boston Globe Horn Award for a non-fiction title. In 1997,
the Philadelphia Inquirer published an article in its Sunday Magazine about a ten-year-old girl
who was able to discover and report that she was being sexually abused after reading It’s
Perfectly Normal.
47. In or about the fall of 2021, some Plaintiffs attempted to check out these two
books from the library but were told by Defendant Milum that they were in Defendant
Cunningham’s office and could not be checked out.
48. On January 19, 2022, after being appointed to the New Library Board, Defendant
Rochelle Wells sent Defendant Jerry Don Moss an email referring to these children’s books as
“disgusting” and thanked Defendant Moss for removing them.
49. Defendants also censored several popular read-aloud picture books aimed at
amusing kids, including, for example, My Butt Is So Noisy!, I Broke My Butt!, and I Need a New
Butt!, and four seasonal books for children, including Larry the Farting Leprechaun, Gary the
Goose and His Gas on the Loose, Freddie the Farting Snowman, and Harvey the Heart Has Too
Many Farts (the “Health Education Picture Books”).

50. These books are highly rated and include silly themes and rhymes to make
reading appealing for young children and to teach them about their bodies. For example, Freddie
the Farting Snowman has 4.8 stars and over 1,900 reviews on Amazon.com, many of which
explain the important purpose of the series. As one such reviewer wrote in mid-2021: “If you
2
A “starred” review is given by a literary publisher, editor, or industry reviewer that denotes a
book of distinction or particularly high quality. School Library Journal, for example, describes its
starred reviews as given to “a book that is either outstanding and unlike anything we’ve seen
before OR it’s an excellent example of that particular genre or format. When we give something
a star, it means that we believe that *almost* every library should have it in their collection–or at
least seriously consider it for purchase.”
12
have a kiddo who is struggling to find interest or motivation to read, these are SUCH a great
series to make reading FUN! Our 6yr old is a perfectionist, so when she wasn’t quite meeting her
[reading] standards we really struggled to find how to motivate her and it broke my heart. This
series was IT!!”
51. Defendant Milum stated in an email to Defendant Moss that, given the
community complaints and controversy surrounding other children’s books, she independently
decided to remove the Health Education Picture Books from library shelves and hide them in her
office filing cabinet—after she had already purchased and entered them into the library’s catalog.
52. Plaintiffs had no notice or opportunity to be heard before these books were
removed and censored. Defendant Milum simply took them off library shelves and deleted them
from the collection catalog.
E. Defendants Move Children’s Books to the Adult Section of the Library

53. In or about October 2021, the pro-censorship faction of the community—which
included many people who would later be appointed as members of the New Library Board, such
as Defendants Schneider, Wallace, and Wells—asked Llano County’s librarians to move certain
books intended for children and teens into a segregated shelf in the adult section of the library
because they believed these books were “inappropriate.”
54. In or about mid-October 2021, Suzette Baker, the then-head librarian of the
Kingsland Library Branch, emailed Defendant Amber Milum opposing this request, explaining
that she believed the librarians should instead “counter [this request] with information on how to
effectively see what their children are doing and on how to choose books.” The pro-censorship
group was undeterred.
55. A few weeks later, Defendant Wallace (who had not yet been appointed to the
New Library Board) sent Defendant Ron Cunningham and others an email repeating this pro-
censorship request to hide children’s books in the adult section of the library. In the email,
Defendant Wallace claimed that certain children’s books in Llano County public libraries
contained “pornographic filth” and should “be RELOCATED to the ADULT section where a
13
child would need to get their parent’s approval to check out.” Defendant Wallace stated that
relocating those books into the adult section of the library was “the only way that I can think of
to prohibit future censorship of books I do agree with, mainly the Bible, if more radicals come to
town and want to use the fact that we censored these books against us.”
56. In or about November 2021, Defendant Milum directed Llano County librarians
to move certain “inappropriate” books out of the room designated for children and teens, and
onto a shelf in the adult section.
F. Defendants Censor Books Based on Representative Matt Krause’s List

57. Emboldened by their successful attack on children’s books, Defendants began to
broaden the scope of their censorship campaign.
58. On October 25, 2021, Texas State Representative Matt Krause issued a letter to
the Texas Education Agency and various school district superintendents identifying 850 books
that Mr. Krause disliked for personal or political reasons (the “Krause List”). Mr. Krause asked
the school superintendents to identify whether any of the books on his list appeared on the
shelves of their school libraries, and how much money was spent on any such books.
59. The 850 books on the Krause List include famous and award-winning titles such
as Between the World and Me and We Were Eight Years in Power by Ta-Nehisi Coates, and The
New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander, as well
as other fiction and nonfiction books related to sexuality, sex education, gender identity, racial
equality, abortion, and teen pregnancy.
60. On October 28, 2021, three days after the Krause List was issued, Defendant
Milum sent Defendant Cunningham an email entitled, “Critical race theory book.” In the body of
the email, Defendant Milum wrote:

I wanted to let you know before it came up in any of your meetings the Kingsland
library does have the book. The book is still in the system but it is behind the front
desk. If anyone wants to check it out they have to ask a librarian. It is no longer
on the shelf.
14
61. In or about early November 2021, a group of pro-censorship community members
including Defendants Wallace and Wells reviewed Llano County’s print and digital library
collection to determine which titles on the Krause List were available in Llano County’s public
libraries. In an email to Defendant Wallace and others describing this review process, Defendant
Wells referred to the Krause List not as the “pornographic” or “obscene” books, but as the “16-
page list of CRT and LGBTQ book[s].”
62. On November 10, 2021, Defendant Wallace sent Defendant Cunningham and
others an email entitled “Pornographic Filth at the Llano Public Libraries.” Attached to
Defendant Wallace’s email was a spreadsheet of all of the books on the Krause List that were
also in Llano County’s library collection, referring to the County’s book selection process as
“atrocious.” Defendant Wallace also commented that she would “like all the pastors to get
involved in this. Perhaps they can organize a weekly prayer vigil on this specific issue. . . . May
God protect our children from this FILTH.”
63. Later that same day, Defendant Cunningham forwarded Defendant Wallace’s
email to Defendant Milum, copying Defendant Moss and directing Defendant Milum to
immediately remove “all books that depict any type of sexual activity or questionable nudity,”
including books in the library’s digital collection. Defendant Cunningham told Defendant Milum
to let him and Defendant Moss know when she completed the task.
64. At or around the same time, Defendant Cunningham also ordered the indefinite
suspension of new book purchases. No books have been ordered for the Llano County Library
System or put on library shelves since October 2021.
65. On November 11, 2021, Defendant Wells sent an email to Defendant Wallace and
others, copying Defendant Moss and stating:

Commissioner Moss and Judge Cunningham have instructed Amber [Milum], the
head librarian, to remove certain books, both physical books and ebooks (via the
LIBBY app). There will also be no new books coming in until this is settled. If
you go into the library you will see Amber and Tina (Children’s librarian) are
currently going through the Children’s section, labeling books, and I am assuming
also removing the books Commissioner Moss has told them to remove. . . .
15
Commissioner Moss, we are very grateful for your help in this situation and all
you have done to begin to remedy it!
66. Working off Defendant Wallace’s derivative list of Krause List books available in
Llano County’s collection, Defendant Milum compiled an Excel spreadsheet entitled, “Bonnie
Wallace book list 2021.11.12,” which listed additional information next to each Krause List book
on Llano County shelves, including its call number, its library branch location, and which
librarian purchased the book (the “Bonnie Wallace Spreadsheet”).
67. On November 12, 2021—the same date listed on the spreadsheet that Defendant
Milum compiled—Defendants removed several books on the Bonnie Wallace Spreadsheet from
the Llano Library Branch shelves, including, for example, Caste: The Origins of Our
Discontents, They Called Themselves the K.K.K.: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group,
Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen, and Spinning. None of these books contain any
obscenity or pornography.
68. Caste was written by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Isabel Wilkerson. Caste
posits that throughout its history, America has been shaped by a hidden caste system, a rigid
hierarchy of human rankings, that influences people’s lives and behavior. Wilkerson links this
system in America to the caste systems of India and Nazi Germany, and explores common
features of caste systems across civilizations. She also points forward to ways America can move
beyond the artificial and destructive separations of human divisions, and toward hope in our
common humanity. Caste has received starred reviews from Kirkus Reviews, Publisher’s
Weekly, Library Journal, and Booklist, and won numerous literary awards, including the #1 New
York Times Bestseller, the #1 Nonfiction Book of the Year by Time, the Los Angeles Times Book
Prize and Oprah’s Book Club.
69. They Called Themselves the K.K.K. is a nonfiction book that narrates the history
and origin of the Ku Klux Klan through various primary sources, including interviews and
personal accounts, congressional documents, diaries, photographs, and other historical records. It
has received starred reviews from Kirkus Reviews, Publishers Weekly, The Horn Book,
Booklist, and School Library Journal. It has also won several literary awards, including the 2011
16
Booklist Top 10 Black History Books for Youth, the 2010 Kirkus Best Young Adult Books, the
2011 Notable Books for a Global Society, and the 2011 Young Adult Library Services
Association’s Award for Excellence in Nonfiction Finalist.
70. Being Jazz is a memoir written by a transgender woman, Jazz Jennings, who
recounts the bullying, discrimination, and rejection she faced during her teenage years because of
her identity. Jennings was the youngest recipient of Equality Florida’s “Voice for Equality”
Award, was honored and recognized at the 2013 GLAAD Awards, where she met former
President Bill Clinton, received the Harvey Milk and Pride Center’s Diversity Honors Youth
Award in 2015, and was named as one of Time Magazine’s Most Influential Teens for 2014-
2015, and Huffington Post’s 14 Most Fearless Teens of 2014. Being Jazz has also received
numerous literary awards, including the 2016 Best Books for Teens, the 2016 Booklist Book
Review Stars, and the 2017 Rainbow List for Young Adult Nonfiction.
71. Spinning by Tillie Walden is a coming-of-age graphic memoir (i.e., a book told in
comic-strip format instead of traditional written prose). It chronicles Walden’s adolescence as a
competitive figure skater while she navigates moving with her family from New Jersey to Texas,
explores her identity and attraction to another girl, and experiences alienation and bullying in her
new community. It has received starred reviews from Kirkus Reviews, Publishers Weekly, and
Booklist. It has also won numerous literary awards, including the New York City Public Library
Notable Best Book for Teens, the Chicago Public Library Best Book of 2017, the 2018 YALSA
Great Graphic Novel, the 2017 Booklist Youth Editors’ Choice, and the Eisner Award for Best
Reality-Based Work, making Walden one of the youngest Eisner Award winners ever at age 22.
72. Plaintiffs had no notice or opportunity to be heard before the Banned Books were
removed and censored. Defendants simply took them off library shelves and deleted them from
the collection catalog.
73. In or about mid-November 2021, Defendant Milum ordered Suzette Baker to
remove the Banned Books and all titles on the Bonnie Wallace Spreadsheet from the Kingsland
17
Library Branch shelves. Ms. Baker refused and told Defendant Milum that removing these books
would constitute censorship.
74. Defendant Milum personally removed at least one other title on the Bonnie
Wallace Spreadsheet from the Kingsland Library Branch shelves, How to Be an Anti-Racist, and
hid it behind the front desk.
G. Defendants Close Llano County’s Public Libraries for Three Days to Hunt
for “Inappropriate” Books
75. On December 13, 2021, the Commissioners Court voted to close the libraries to
the public for three dates from December 20 to December 23, 2021, to conduct a private review
of the “appropriateness” of books on library shelves in the teen and children’s sections. The
Commissioners Court did not define “appropriateness” or otherwise explain the criteria
employed in this review.
76. Although the Commissioners Court declined to define their censorship criteria
publicly, Defendant Wells explained in an email that Defendant Moss’s plan to close the library
for three days was “entirely devoted to removing those books that contain pornographic content,”
and that she had sent him the Excel spreadsheet with the Krause List titles, commenting:
“hopefully that will help also.” In the same email, Wells wrote that “Commissioner Don truly is
a God-send!!” and that she would be thanking Defendant Jerry Don Moss at the next Tea Party
meeting for refusing to meet with a member of the public who had referred to his book removals
as “censorship.”
77. On December 14, 2021, Defendant Wells sent an email to Defendants Wallace
and Schneider regarding the December 13 Commissioners Court meeting, stating:

God has been so good to us and given us favor in the eyes of the community and
the commissioners. I am very thankful to Him for sending all of you to fight this
battle for the protection of the hearts and minds of the kids of Llano. Please
continue to pray for the librarians and that their eyes would be opened to the truth.
H. Defendants Permanently Terminate Access to OverDrive
78. In or about November 2021, following the creation and dissemination of the
Bonnie Wallace Spreadsheet, Defendants discovered that two books on the Spreadsheet from the
18
Krause List were accessible to Llano County library patrons on OverDrive, Llano County’s
curated collection of over 17,000 digital ebooks and audiobook titles. According to emails sent
by Defendants Wallace and Wells, they believed that OverDrive contained some of the “worst”
titles on the Krause List.
79. Defendants initially attempted to remove the two Krause List books from
OverDrive, but soon realized that OverDrive has no mechanism to remove or restrict access to
individual book titles available in its digital consortium.
80. On December 1, 2021, Defendant Cunningham sent Defendant Milum an email
asking various questions about how children could be restricted from accessing OverDrive.
81. Defendant Milum responded by proposing parental control options that could be
implemented on OverDrive to restrict children’s access to mature content—controls which
would have filtered out the two Krause List books.
82. Defendant Milum explained to Defendants Moss and Cunningham that
discontinuing OverDrive entirely, including for adult users, would “be a disservice to most of our
patrons. We have a lot of elderly patrons who only use overdrive and our travelers do as well. I
hope these options will be a comfort to parents that there is something that can help.”
83. Over the next two weeks, Defendant Milum and other Llano County librarians
continued to attempt to persuade Defendants that the proposed parental controls were sufficient
to address any purported concerns about children using OverDrive. Other Llano County
librarians, including Suzette Baker, argued that the County’s entire adult population should not
be precluded from accessing the tens of thousands of books on OverDrive solely because of two
Krause List books.
84. Although OverDrive’s parental controls offered a reasonable means to protect
children—Defendants’ purported reason for wanting to restrict the books in the first place—
Defendants rejected this option.
85. An email sent by Defendant Wells on December 2, 2021, confirms that

Defendants would be satisfied only with a digital library collection over which they had
19
complete and total control. Defendant Wells stated that Defendant Moss’s first agenda item for
the upcoming December 13, 2021 Commissioners Court meeting was “substituting OverDrive
with a system that support[s] our library only, so we choose the books. . . . If that is not an option
then no ebooks until it can be remedied.”
86. At the December 13, 2021 Commissioners Court meeting, the Commissioners
voted unanimously to suspend access to OverDrive for all users—including accounts for both
children and adults.
87. On December 14, 2021, Defendant Wells sent an email celebrating the
Commissioner Court’s decision to suspend OverDrive, exclaiming: “[T]his is where the worst
books have been available to minors, so praise God for this immediate solution!”
88. Although the Commissioners’ OverDrive suspension was originally framed as a
temporary solution, it later became Defendants’ permanent solution.
89. Defendants initially researched other options for digital book collections, such as
Bibliotheca, but ran into the same problem. As Defendant Cunningham framed it on December
21, 2021: “I understand Bibliotheca is an option, but from what I can see that service also has
OverDrive inventory…”
90. Defendants did not suspend OverDrive for financial or economic reasons. In fact,
some of the replacement options that Defendants researched would have been more costly on an
annual basis than OverDrive.
91. A week after the Commissioner Court’s vote, a patron emailed a Llano County
librarian asking why OverDrive had been suspended: “[My spouse] says Court stopping
overdrive because of books available, critical race theory, etc. I guess money.” The librarian
responded, “It’s not because of money. [Your spouse’s] guess is closer.”
92. In late December 2021, Defendant Cunningham emailed Defendant Milum
stating, “we probably need to turn OverDrive back on for adults.”
93. On January 10, 2022, the Commissioners Court instructed Defendant Milum to
find a mechanism to prevent minors from accessing OverDrive altogether.
20
94. On January 24, 2022, Defendant Milum presented a solution to the
Commissioners Court that would have excluded minors from OverDrive and permitted access to
adults only. Once again, this solution did not satisfy Defendants. The Commissioners refused to
reinstate OverDrive access for adults, and delegated any future decisions regarding OverDrive or
a replacement digital book collection to the New Library Board.
95. Defendants never reinstated OverDrive access for its library patrons. Nor have
Defendants replaced OverDrive with any other digital collection of ebooks and audiobooks.
96. Defendants’ decision to terminate OverDrive has had a substantial and profound
impact on the Llano County community. In the two years prior, Llano County library patrons
collectively checked out over 7,930 titles on OverDrive. Moreover, the termination cut off easy
access to library books for the elderly, people with disabilities, and those otherwise unable to
visit a physical library in Llano County.
97. Because Defendants were unable to remove two Krause List books that offended
their politics and personal sensibilities, Defendants instead opted to remove access to OverDrive
altogether, preventing all library patrons in Llano County from accessing OverDrive’s digital
collection of more than 17,000 books.
I. Defendants Restructure the Library Board and Appoint New Members

98. In or about January 2022, the Commissioners Court voted to dissolve the existing
library board—whose members came from the Friends of the Library groups and the Women’s
Culture Club—and packed the New Library Board with political appointees, including many of
the people who had advocated for banning the Health Education Picture Books and books on the
Krause List, some of whom did not even have library cards prior to their appointment.
99. In particular, Defendants Baskin, Wallace, Wells, and Schneider were appointed
to the New Library Board by the Commissioners Court. It was at this point that Baskin, Wallace,
Wells, and Schneider’s advocacy shifted from personal expression to making decisions and
taking unconstitutional actions under color of state law.
21
100. By design, New Library Board members could only be hand-picked by the
Commissioners Court. As Wells wrote in an email on December 2, 2021, “[the New Library
Board] will be by appointment, not for whoever wants to join - which is good because we were
worried about that.”
101. Although several Plaintiffs wanted to be members of the New Library Board, the
Commissioners refused to consider them for the position because of Plaintiffs’ public stances
against ongoing censorship efforts in the County.
102. Plaintiff Richard Day, for example, was Commissioner Peter Jones’s initial
appointee for the New Library Board—a decision that was reported in the local paper. Plaintiff
Day was more than qualified for the position; he holds a master’s degree in Library and
Information Science, previously managed the rare books collection at the University of Texas
Medical Branch in Galveston, and formerly served on a library board in Wichita Falls. But
Commissioner Jones later revoked the appointment, informing Plaintiff Day over the phone that
Day was not fit to serve on the New Library Board because of his “politics.”
103. Similarly, Plaintiff Jeanne Puryear, who was on the prior library board before the
Commissioners Court voted to fire her and all other board members, was told by Defendant
Moss that he would not consider her for the New Library Board because he wanted to bring in
entirely new people such as Defendants Wells and Schneider.

104. Plaintiff Rebecca Jones asked to be considered for the New Library Board
through voicemails, emails, and faxes to Defendants Moss and Cunningham. She never received
a response.
105. Plaintiff Leila Green Little wrote a letter to the Commissioners Court formally
applying to serve on the New Library Board. In addition to listing her many credentials, she also
implored Defendants not to remove access to OverDrive. Plaintiff Little hand-delivered five
copies of the letter to the County Commissioners’ office—one for each of Defendants
Cunningham, Moss, Jones, Sandoval, and Raschke. Plaintiff Little also never heard back.
22
106. The Commissioners Court’s purported purpose for “restructuring” the New
Library Board (i.e., firing and re-appointing new members) was to task the new members with
amending existing library policies, including book collection and book removal procedures, and
presenting the updated policies and procedures to the Commissioners Court for final approval.
107. In voting to dissolve the existing library board in or about January 2022, the
Commissioners Court also voted to rename it the “Library Advisory Board.” Notwithstanding
this name change, the New Library Board is “advisory” in name only. To date, the New Library
Board has made several decisions without receiving the Commissioners Court’s final approval.
108. For example, without oversight by or approval from the Commissioners Court,
the New Library Board formed the “Collection Review Committee,” an internal committee
tasked with reviewing “books that are questionable” and deciding whether or not they are
“appropriate” for Llano County’s public libraries. There are no designated criteria governing the
review of such books, no public notice as to when such books are to be considered by the
Collection Review Committee, no public hearings of the Collection Review Committee, and no
appeals process when the Collection Review Committee has deemed a book inappropriate and
unsuitable for Llano County library shelves.
109. In addition, the New Library Board has tasked itself with creating and
implementing an amended library materials collection policy (i.e., the library’s official set of
procedures dictating how new books are purchased and how old books are weeded) without
seeking or intending to seek approval from the Commissioners Court. In or about January 2022,
the New Library Board instructed Defendant Milum and Llano County librarians that all new
books must be presented to and pre-approved by the New Library Board before they can be
purchased or placed on library shelves.
110. On January 28, 2022, for example, Defendant Milum emailed the Lakeshore head
librarian stating, “If you have a book list ready to be ordered let me know. I have to send them to
the board for review.”
23
111. Although Llano County librarians have presented tentative book purchase lists to
the New Library Board since implementing its book-approval requirement, the New Library
Board has yet to actually approve any proposed or requested books. No new library books have
been purchased for Llano County’s library collection since October 2021.
112. For New Library Board decisions that have actually been presented to the
Commissioners Court for review, such as the newly implemented New Library Board bylaws,
the Commissioners have routinely adopted and “rubber stamped” decisions made by the New
Library Board without exercising any independent judgment or discretion.
J. Defendants Bar the Public from Attending New Library Board Meetings
113. For decades, Llano County’s prior library boards held their meetings in public and
welcomed public comment and participation.
114. In early 2022, the New Library Board’s initial meetings, which took place in
library meeting rooms, were also open to the public. That soon changed.
115. On January 19, 2022, Defendant Wells emailed Defendant Moss about the New
Library Board meeting that took place that day, stating: “There were three or four patrons present
and taking notes. That surprised a few of us. Would you be able to persuade Judge Cunningham
to keep the meetings closed and only include appointed board members, bringing in Amber
[Milum] when we need clarification, etc.[?] (Cheryll Mabray (Precinct 1) brought this up and
most agreed with her.).”
116. On February 14, 2022, Defendant Cunningham sent an email to members of the
New Library Board, stating: “please remember that you are not obligated to having a public
comment component in your meetings.” In the same email, Defendant Cunningham also banned
staff librarians from attending New Library Board meetings. Defendant Milum passed this
message onto the other County librarians, informing them by email that “[s]taff members are not
to attend [Library] Board meetings. You may not use your vacation time to attend.”
117. Three days later, at its February 17, 2022 meeting, the New Library Board
stopped allowing public comments.
24
118. On March 3, 2022, the New Library Board held a meeting to discuss whether it
was subject to the requirements of the Texas Open Meetings Act (“TOMA”) and the Texas
Public Information Act (“TPIA”). The Board concluded that it would not be subject to these laws
because it was now an “advisory,” not a governmental, body.
119. During the meeting, a member of the New Library Board asked whether meeting
notes taken by Defendant Milum would be considered public record, as she was the only County
library staff member allowed to attend the New Library Board’s meetings. When Defendant
Wallace learned that the answer was yes, Defendant Milum’s notes could become a public record
subject to the TPIA, Defendant Wallace responded: “Take her pen.”
120. Near the end of the meeting, Defendant Schneider made a motion to make all
future Library Board meetings private. The New Library Board approved it unanimously,
breaking with the decades-long tradition of prior library boards and successfully closing all
future meetings to the public.
K. Defendants Withhold County Employee Communications

121. Pursuant to the TPIA, Plaintiffs asked for all correspondence between Defendant
Milum and library staff from February 12, 2022, through February 17, 2022.
122. Defendants did not produce all responsive correspondence, in violation of the
TPIA. Plaintiffs learned of at least one responsive email from another source—an email that
Defendants had not produced in response to Plaintiffs’ TPIA requests.
123. Further, the County has wholly refused to produce any communications between,
or records created by, members of the New Library Board.
124. Defendants’ violations of the TOMA and TPIA provide additional evidence of
their intent to censor and conceal the facts underlying their unconstitutional actions.
L. Defendants Fire Dissenting Librarian Suzette Baker

125. From the very start of Defendants’ censorship campaign, the head of the
Kingsland Library Branch, Suzette Baker, refused to abide by Defendants’ unconstitutional

orders—a decision that ultimately cost her her job.
25
126. Each time Defendant Milum directed Ms. Baker to move children’s books into the
adult section of the library, remove books on the Bonnie Wallace Spreadsheet from library
shelves, or otherwise do Defendants’ censorship bidding, Ms. Baker said no.
127. For example, in or about mid-November 2021, Defendant Milum ordered Ms.
Baker to remove all titles on the Bonnie Wallace Spreadsheet from the Kingsland Library Branch
shelves. Ms. Baker refused and told Defendant Milum that removing these books would
constitute censorship. Ms. Baker also told Defendant Milum that she should consult with the
county attorney because Milum’s actions and orders were illegal and in violation of the First
Amendment.
128. On another occasion, Ms. Baker discovered that Defendant Milum had removed
How to Be an Anti-Racist—a book on the Krause List and on the derivative Bonnie Wallace
Spreadsheet—from the Kingsland Library Branch shelves and hid it behind the front desk. Ms.
Baker immediately put the book back on the shelves.
129. Ms. Baker, a book lover with a quick wit, was well known in Kingsland for the
quippy signs she would put on the library message board out front to attract visitors.
130. In or about February 2022, Ms. Baker put up one such sign in front of the
Kingsland Library that said, “We put the ‘lit’ in literature.” This sign had a double meaning.
“Lit” referred to the slang word for cool or fun, and also referenced the recent book burning that
happened in Tennessee.
131. Inside the library, Ms. Baker set up a display of books next to a sign that said,
“Come check out our ‘lit’ books!” The book display contained an assortment of historically
banned books like 1984, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Fahrenheit 451. It also had some of the
books from the Bonnie Wallace Spreadsheet that she had been ordered—and refused—to
remove, including How to Be an Anti-Racist and Between the World and Me.
132. The next day, Defendant Milum came to the Kingsland Library and ordered Ms.
Baker to take down the message board sign and corresponding book display. Defendant Milum
26
told Ms. Baker to remove the books from the Bonnie Wallace Spreadsheet from the display, and
to put a replacement sign over the remaining books entitled, “Classics.”
133. On February 9, 2022, Ms. Baker received a verbal warning from Defendant
Milum for insubordination after attending the first two New Library Board meetings, both of
which were held in public meeting rooms in the Kingsland Library where she worked.
134. On March 9, 2022, Defendant Milum fired Ms. Baker for the alleged offenses of
“insubordination,” “creating a disturbance,” “violation of policies,” and “allowing personal
opinions to interfere with job duties and procedures.”
M. Plaintiffs Are Suffering Immediate and Irreparable Harm

135. Each day that Plaintiffs are deprived of their right of access to the Banned Books
and OverDrive, they suffer immediate and irreparable injury. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373
(1976) (“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time,
unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”).
136. Without success, Plaintiffs have attempted to locate and check out the Banned
Books that Defendants have censored, including but not limited to, the Health Education Picture
Books, In the Night Kitchen, It’s Perfectly Normal, Caste, They Called Themselves the K.K.K,
Spinning, and Being Jazz. Plaintiffs wish to exercise their First Amendment rights to access and
receive information, but they are unable to do so because Defendants have removed the Banned
Books and many others from the collection catalog and library shelves.
137. Also without success, Plaintiffs have attempted to access OverDrive using their
Llano County library cards. Plaintiffs wish to exercise their First Amendment rights to access
and receive information in the ebooks and audiobooks on OverDrive, but they are unable to do
so because Defendants have permanently terminated OverDrive access for all Llano County
library cardholders.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Count One: 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Violation of First Amendment – Viewpoint Discrimination

138. All prior paragraphs are incorporated here by reference.
27
139. The First Amendment binds the State of Texas pursuant to the incorporation
doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment. In all of the following paragraphs, references to the First
Amendment include the First Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth
Amendment.
140. The First Amendment protects the right to access and receive information and
ideas. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).
141. This right is “vigorously enforced in the context of a public library, the
‘quintessential locus of the receipt of information’” and the free marketplace of ideas. Sund v.
City of Wichita Falls, Texas, 121 F. Supp. 2d 530, 548 (N.D. Tex. 2000) (quoting Kreimer v.
Bureau of Police, 958 F.2d 1242, 1255 (3d Cir. 1992)).
142. Viewpoint discrimination is censorship based on a government actor’s subjective
judgment that the content of protected speech is offensive or inappropriate. Viewpoint
discrimination is the most pernicious and egregious type of content-based suppression.
143. Defendants removed the Banned Books from library shelves and permanently
terminated access to OverDrive for the entire County because Defendants subjectively disliked
the content of the Banned Books.
144. Defendants removed the Banned Books on the basis of their message and content
for the specific purpose of suppressing and censoring public access to the ideas and information
contained within them.
145. Defendants issued a moratorium on all new book purchases to ensure that all new
books added to the Llano County library collection would comport with Defendants’ subjective
beliefs, tastes, and values.
146. Defendants issued this book purchase moratorium for the specific purpose of
suppressing and censoring public access to ideas and information which they subjectively
disagree with or dislike.
147. Defendants’ removal of the Banned Books, permanent termination of OverDrive

access, and moratorium on all new book purchases thus constitutes impermissible and
28
unconstitutional content-based and viewpoint-based discrimination in violation of Plaintiffs’
First Amendment rights.
148. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered and will
continue to suffer irreparable harm, including violations of their First Amendment rights to
access and receive information and ideas.
Count Two: 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Violation of Fourteenth Amendment – Due Process
149. All prior paragraphs are incorporated here by reference.
150. The essential requirements of due process are proper notice and an opportunity to
be heard. Here, Plaintiffs had neither.
151. Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of their constitutional right to access and receive
information and ideas by removing the Banned Books and permanently terminating OverDrive
access without providing any prior notice.
152. Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs with an opportunity to be heard—either at a
meeting of the Library Board or in any other public forum—before the removal of the Banned
Books and permanent termination of OverDrive occurred.
153. In fact, Defendants affirmatively opted to ensure that Plaintiffs would never have
notice and an opportunity to be heard by closing Library Board meetings to the public and
thereby barring Plaintiffs from attending all future meetings.

154. Defendants also violated Plaintiffs due process rights by failing to create and
implement any mechanism for members of the public to appeal the removal of books from
library shelves, including specifically with respect to the removal of the Banned Books and the
permanent suspension of OverDrive.
155. The Texas Open Meetings Act requires that Defendants make the meetings of the
Library Board open to the public. See Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 551 et seq.
156. The Texas Open Meetings Act also prescribes notice and hearing requirements
that Defendants have failed to follow. By failing to comply with the Texas Open Meetings Act,
Defendants have also violated Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.
29
157. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered and will
continue to suffer irreparable harm, including violations of their Fourteenth Amendment due
process rights.
158. In particular, Plaintiffs will continue to suffer future deprivation of their
constitutional right to access and receive information and ideas if the New Library Board is
permitted to continue conducting its meetings in private, issuing library policies and procedures
in private and without the approval of the County Commissioners, exercise complete authority
over new book purchases, and review book challenges in private without notice or a hearing.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court provide the following relief:
(a) Declaratory relief stating that Defendants have violated Plaintiffs’ First and
Fourteenth Amendment rights;
(b) Injunctive relief that is tailored to remedy the specific violations determined on the
merits of Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment claims;
(c) Plaintiffs’ costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
(d) Any such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: April 25, 2022 Respectfully Submitted,

BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP
/s/ Ellen V. Leonida

Ellen V. Leonida (CA Bar No. 184194)*
Matthew Borden (CA Bar No. 214323)*
J. Noah Hagey (CA Bar No. 262331)*
Sarah Salomon (CA Bar No. 308770)*
Pratik Ghosh (NY Registration No. 5754940)*
Amy Senia (CA Bar No. 329134)*
BraunHagey & Borden LLP
351 California Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel & Fax: 415-599-0210
leonida@braunhagey.com
borden@braunhagey.com
30
hagey@braunhagey.com
salomon@braunhagey.com
ghosh@braunhagey.com
senia@braunhagey.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

*Pro hac vice forthcoming
WITTLIFF | CUTTER PLLC
/s/ Ryan A. Botkin

Ryan A. Botkin (TX Bar No. 00793366)
Katherine P. Chiarello (TX Bar No. 24006994)
María Amelia Calaf (TX Bar No. 24081915)
Wittliff | Cutter PLLC
1209 Nueces Street
Austin, Texas 78701
Tel: 512-960-4730
Fax: 512-960-4869
ryan@wittliffcutter.com
katherine@wittliffcutter.com
mac@wittliffcutter.com
31
JS 44 (Rev. 10/20) Case 5:22-cv-00400-JKP
CIVILDocument
COVER1-1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 1 of 2
SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
Leila Green Little, Jeanne Puryear, Kathy Kennedy, LLANO COUNTY, RON CUNNINGHAM, in his official
Rebecca Jones, Richard Day, Cynthia Waring, Diane capacity as Llano County Judge, JERRY DON MOSS, in his
Moster
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Llano County official
County ofcapacity Llano
Residence of First ListedCounty Commissioner, PETER
Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Wittliff Cutter PLLC, 1209 Nueces Street

Austin, Texas 78701, 512-960-4730
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR 880 Defend Trade Secrets 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards Act of 2016 (15 USC 1681 or 1692)
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 485 Telephone Consumer
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management SOCIAL SECURITY Protection Act
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 893 Environmental Matters
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 895 Freedom of Information
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence or Defendant) 896 Arbitration
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 871 IRS—Third Party 899 Administrative Procedure
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION 26 USC 7609 Act/Review or Appeal of
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application Agency Decision
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration 950 Constitutionality of
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions State Statutes
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 U.S.C. § 1983
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Viewpoint Discrimination in Violation of the First Amendment, Procedural Due Process Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
Apr 25, 2022 /s/ Katherine P. Chiarello
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 10/20) Case 5:22-cv-00400-JKP Document 1-1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 2 of 2
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then
the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service.
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Little Et Al Vs Llano County Officials

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Little Et Al Vs Llano County Officials

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Little Et Al Vs Llano County Officials

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the lawsuit about?

What is the lawsuit about?

What books have the defendants targeted for removal?

What books have the defendants targeted for removal?

Case 5:22-cv-00400-JKP Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 1 of 31

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

LEILA GREEN LITTLE, JEANNE § Civil Action No. 5:22-cv-400

4. Publicly, Defendants claim to be on a hunt to eradicate “pornographic” materials.

based on the viewpoints and ideas contained within those books.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

accordingly, has personal jurisdiction over Defendants.

medical liaison librarian to the pediatrics department.

organizations that help fundraise for Llano County’s public libraries.

their official capacities.

20. In particular, Defendant Ron Cunningham is an elected official and final

in his official capacity as Llano County Judge.

official capacity as the Llano County Library System Director.

have degrees or prior professional experience in library sciences. Defendant Schneider

they subjectively disagreed with or disliked.

the opportunity to be heard before restricting and removing library books.

A. The Llano County Library System

knowledge and the exploration of ideas.

physical disabilities that make accessing a physical library location difficult.

Defendants permanently terminated access to it.

B. The Llano County Library System’s Materials Selection and Removal

librarians are to curate the books in the County’s library collection.

Library Bill of Rights, which states, in part:

not and cannot select pornographic materials for its collection.

censorship to restrict access to the materials by others.”

C. Defendants Embark on a Campaign of Censorship and Viewpoint

subjective opinions, as well as their political and religious views.

books targeted by Defendants is pornographic or obscene.

policies prohibit the collection or distribution of pornographic or obscene materials.

42. Defendants implemented their censorship campaign by employing the following

• removing books they disapproved of from library shelves;

section of the library;

in County employees’ offices;

• terminating OverDrive access permanently;1

• issuing an indefinite moratorium on all new book purchases;

and politically aligned appointees (the “New Library Board”);

• tasking the ideologically motivated New Library Board with creating

Board to pre-approve all future book purchases proposed by librarians;

• referring to the New Library Board as “advisory” in an attempt to evade

• banning Llano County’s librarians from attending meetings of the New

• refusing to produce records related to their censorship campaign in response

to a properly served TPIA request; and

• firing the head librarian of Kingsland Library, Suzette Baker, for

“insubordination” after she questioned and refused to comply with

Defendants’ censorship requests.

D. Defendants Target and Remove Children’s Books

Bodies, Growing Up, Sex, and Sexual Health.

subjects of immediate importance and concern to pre-teens and teenagers in an accurate,

Cunningham’s office and could not be checked out.

“disgusting” and thanked Defendant Moss for removing them.

Many Farts (the “Health Education Picture Books”).

series was IT!!”

from the collection catalog.