Velasquez v. Rogers

BRENDA VELASQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. MARGARET ROGERS et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 7:20-cv-00097-O

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION

May 26, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court are Defendants Margaret Rogers and Mary Elizabeth Romm's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 54-55), filed April 8, 2021; Defendant Valerie Thomerson's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 59-60), filed April 9, 2021; Plaintiff Brenda Velasquez's Consolidated Response (ECF No. 66), filed April 27, 2021; Defendant Lakisha Nicole McKnight's Second Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (ECF Nos. 57-58), filed April 9, 2021; Plaintiff's Response (ECF No. 65), filed April 26, 2021; and Defendant McKnight's Reply (ECF No. 70), filed May 3, 2021.

Having considered the motions, briefing, and applicable law, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants Margaret Rogers and Mary Elizabeth Romm's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 54-55), GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant Valerie Thomerson's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 59-60); and DENIES Defendant Lakisha Nicole McKnight's Second Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (ECF Nos. 57-58).

I. BACKGROUND

This civil-rights action arises from a probation officer's coerced private adoption of her probationer's child and retaliatory violation report resulting in the probationer's incarceration during the period to challenge the adoption. In December 2017, Plaintiff Brenda Velasquez ("Velasquez") was placed on probation under the supervision of the Wichita County Community Supervision and Corrections Department ("WCCSCD"). See Pl.'s App., Ex. 1, 1-4, ECF No. 66-1; Defs.' App. 6, ECF No. 55-1. At the time, Defendants Margaret Rogers ("Rogers") and Elizabeth Romm ("Romm") served as director and deputy director of the WCCSCD, respectively, overseeing a staff of supervisors who, in turn, directly supervise probation officers. See Pl.'s App., Ex. 2, 5-6, ECF No. 66-2; Ex. 3, 5-7, ECF No. 66-3. In January 2018, Rogers and Romm hired Defendant Lakisha Nicole McKnight ("McKnight") as a probation officer and assigned her to Velasquez's caseload. See Defs.' App. 7, 16, ECF No. 55-1; Pl.'s App., Rogers Deposition 8:4-9:21, ECF No. 66-2. On September 18, 2018, Defendant Valerie Thomerson ("Thomerson") was promoted from probation officer to supervisor, becoming the direct supervisor of five probation officers including non-party Stephen Gontz ("Gontz") and McKnight. See Pl.'s App., Ex. 4, 28, ECF No. 66-4. Rogers, Romm, and Thomerson (sometimes collectively, "supervisor Defendants") had weekly staff meetings from that point forward. Pl.'s App., Ex. 4, 59, ECF No. 66-4. Thomerson had weekly meetings with her supervisees, including with McKnight. Pl.'s App., Ex. 4, 59, ECF No. 66-4.

Before an April 2018 probation office visit, Velasquez was arrested for family violence and learned she was pregnant; she told McKnight of both during her visit. See Defs.' App. 7, ECF No. 55-1. McKnight promised Velasquez that she would refrain from filing a violation report for Velasquez's recent arrest while she decided what to do with the child. See Defs.' App. 7, ECF No. 55-1. During Velasquez's May 2018 visit, she confided in McKnight that she had a family member interested in adopting the child, and McKnight inquired about adopting the baby herself through a private adoption. Defs.' App. 7, ECF No. 55-1. Velasquez also identified Joseph Rene Bice("Bice") as the father of the child. Defs.' App. 7, ECF No. 55-1. During their June meeting, McKnight leaned into the adoption—promising to figure out all the details, drive Velasquez to an upcoming appointment, and not violate her in the meantime. Defs.' App. 7, ECF No. 55-1. The next month, McKnight proposed a private adoption and plans to fund the adoption without creating an issue. Pl.'s App., Ex. 12, ECF No. 66-12 ("McKnight would state it has to be a private adoption, because nobody could find out due to the fact that [Velasquez] was on probation."). Over the next few months through a pattern of bullying and bribery, McKnight coerced Velasquez into the adoption. See, e.g., Pl.'s App., Ex. 12, ECF No. 66-12 (McKnight gave Velasquez's $100 for probation fees and later a down payment for an apartment); Pl.'s App., Ex. 6, at 17, ECF No. 66-6 (McKnight also gifted Velasquez furniture for the apartment); Pl.'s App., Ex. 6, at 16, ECF No. 66-6 (McKnight paid Velasquez's cell phone bill); see also Def.'s App. 6, 8-9, ECF No. 55-1.

While under McKnight's supervision, Velasquez missed drug tests and probation payments; failed to complete the probation-mandated orientation, training, and community service hours; and was arrested for Assault-Family Violence. Pl.'s App., Ex. 7, ECF No. 66-7; Pl.'s App., Ex. 5, at 8, 35, ECF No. 66-5. Together, Velasquez's actions should have triggered McKnight to file a violation report under WCCSCD policy. Pl.'s App., Ex. 4, ECF No. 66-4; see also Pl.'s App., Ex. 4, ECF Nos. 66-4; Pl.'s App., Ex. 3, at 62-63, ECF No. 66-3. According to McKnight, she protected Velasquez by not sending a violation report. Pl.'s App., Ex. 8, at 8, ECF Nos. 66-8; see also Pl.'s App., Ex. 12, ECF No. 66-12 (Similarly, McKnight told Velasquez that she had input false community service hours into her file); see also Pl.'s App., Ex. 3, at 62-63, ECF No. 66-3.

On October 2, 2018, ten days before Velasquez's due date, McKnight emailed Assistant District Attorney Kyle Lessor ("ADA Lessor") inquiring about Velasquez's case number—"is this one still yours?" Pl.'s App., Ex. 9, ECF No. 66-6. When ADA Lessor responded affirmatively,Velasquez informed him that she would "probably be working a [violation report] this week[,]" detailing Velasquez's two arrests and failure to pay or attend classes. Id. McKnight also cautioned that, while Velasquez was not a drug user herself, she may be a flight risk because "[s]omeone called reporting she is selling meth again and is pla[nn]ing to skip out on probation . . . ." Id. McKnight succinctly concluded, "I want revocation with jail time." Id. ADA Lessor encouraged McKnight to file the violations and said he would get an arrest warrant to imprison Velasquez without bond as soon as her next reporting date. Id.

One week later, Velasquez recorded her intention to give the still-unborn child to McKnight by signing and reading aloud both the Statement to Confer Standing and the Release of Child from Hospital, which were verified by a Texas notary and witnessed by Jeanne Ellis and Tom Cotton (McKnight's attorney). See Pl.'s App., Ex. 12, ECF No. 66-12 ("Statement to Confer Standing"); Pl.'s App., Ex. 13, ECF No. 66-13 ("Release of Child from Hospital"). The same day, Velasquez and McKnight signed a catch-up plan for Velasquez's delinquent probation payments and community service hours. Pl.'s App., Ex. 14, ECF No. 66-14 ("Community Service Restitution Plan"); Pl.'s App., Ex. 15, ECF No. 66-15 ("Payment Plan"). Later that same day at 5:20 P.M., Velasquez was admitted to the hospital. Pl.'s App., Ex. 11, ECF No. 66-6. Velasquez gave birth to the child soon thereafter, and McKnight went to the hospital. Id.

Three days later, a social worker assessed Velasquez and discussed the adoption with her, noting that she "did not mention the adoption to any of the [nursing] staff" and, when asked, she "commented that it is something that will be taken care of outside of [the] hospital and acted as though she didn't want [the] hospital to know about the adoption." Pl.'s App., Ex. 11, ECF No. 66-6. The social worker told Velasquez that she needed to complete a Third-Party Release form for the baby to discharge with the adoptive couple. Id. Understanding, Velasquez explained that"she doesn't know exactly what the plan is, commenting that adoptive parents will be here later [that day]." Id. After their meeting, the social worker returned an earlier phone call from McKnight. Id. Sooner thereafter, a hospital doctor assessed Velasquez, observing her to be "frustrated" based on her saying "I just want to go home" and "I am not leaving my baby." Id. That night, the hospital discharged Velasquez; the baby was to be discharged the next day with McKnight. Id.

The next day around noon, Velasquez signed and read aloud Mother's Affidavit for Voluntary Relinquishment of Parental Rights, designating McKnight and her husband as managing conservators of the child and waiving her rights to testify in court about the child at later termination and adoption proceedings. Pl.'s App., Ex. 18, ECF No. 66-6 ("Mother's Affidavit for Voluntary Relinquishment of Parental Rights"). The document is witnessed by Tom Cotton (McKnight's attorney) and Megan Clubb. Id. According to Velasquez, she acquiesced to signing the adoption paperwork because she "felt threatened out of fear [McKnight] would have [her] arrested if [she] did not sign the papers." Pl.'s App., Ex. 6, at 25, ECF No. 66-6.

According to handwritten records by Rogers, McKnight requested maternity leave from Rogers before the child was born. Pl.'s App., Exs. 16-17, ECF No. 66-6 ("McKnight's Employment Records"); see also Pl.'s App., Ex. 12, ECF No. 66-12; Pl.'s App., Ex. 25, ECF No. 66-25. Rogers granted McKnight's request for the period of October 16 to December 10, 2018, noting the child was expected to be born on Friday, October 12, 2018. Pl.'s App., Ex. 16, ECF No. 66-6. While on leave on October 29, 2021, McKnight emailed Rogers, informing her that she had learned that—only coincidentally—she was in possession of Velasquez's child, attaching the signed Statement to Confer Standing and a United Regional Certificate of Birth, both of which show Velasquez as the birth mother of the child. Pl.'s App., Ex. 23, ECF No. 66-23. In the email,McKnight explained that she "was aware that [Velasquez] was pregnant" but that "she was always reluctant to provide information about any aspects of her life." Pl.'s App., Ex. 23, ECF No. 66-23. McKnight also...