Austin ISD Lawsuit

Case 1:19-cv-00586-RP Document 30 Filed 04/29/20 Page 1 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DVISION
CRYSTAL AYON A/N/F M.R.A., A MINOR,
Plaintiff,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-cv-00586
AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL

DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
TO THE HONORABLE ROBERT L. PITMAN:
COMES NOW CRYSTAL AYON, A/N/F OF M.R.A., A MINOR, Plaintiff, and
respectfully moves the Court for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The proposed amended complaint adds additional defendants, adds
additional claims for relief, and addresses factual discrepancies noted in this Court’s March 31,
2020 Order. The proposed Second Amended Complaint maintains the same cause of action and
prayer for relief against Defendant AISD as the First Amended Complaint. As such, the
amendment is not futile and Defendant AISD will not be prejudiced by the amendment. If this
Court does not grant Plaintiff leave to file her Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asks, in the
alternative, that this Court grant Plaintiff a new trial. In support of her motions, Plaintiff would
respectfully show the Court the following:
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED PETITION AND IN THE
ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL 1
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff is Crystal Ayon A/N/F M.R.A., a Minor; Defendant is Austin Independent
School District (“AISD”).
2. Plaintiff sued Defendant AISD for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising from
M.R.A’s repeated sexual assault by Defendant AISD’s employee, Cesar Maldonado.
3. Defendant filed its Second Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on August
7, 2019.
4. This Court granted Defendant AISD’s 12(b)(6) Motion in part, dismissing
Plaintiff’s case without prejudice on March 31, 2020. The Court’s Final Judgment on the Order
was entered on April 3, 2020. Plaintiff files this Motion on April 29, 2020, which is within 28
days after the entry of the Order.
II. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITY
A. The Court May Grant Leave for Plaintiff to Amend
5. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), the Court “should freely give
leave when justice so requires.” The decision to grant leave to amend a pleading is within the
sound discretion of the district court and
In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith
or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies
by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue
of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment . . . —the leave sought
should, as the rules require, be “freely given.”
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 182 (1962) (internal citation omitted).
6. Here, good cause exists because Plaintiff seeks to address the pleading deficiencies
noted in this Court’s March 31, 2020 Order. See Exhibit 1. The proposed amended complaint
seeks to address the necessary factual support needed to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Therefore, the amendment is not futile, and is not being filed for purposes of delay or in
bad faith. The proposed amended complaint maintains the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cause of action against
Defendant AISD as Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and additionally alleges a violation of
Title IX. The Second Amended complaint additionally brings Texas State Law claims against the
newly added Defendant Cesar Maldonado, who is currently incarcerated for the actions giving rise
to Plaintiff’s cause of action. Further, the Second Amended Complaint alleges §1983 and Title IX
violations against AISD Vice Principal, Claudia Santamaria, Detective Alex Phillips, AISD Police
Chief Ashley Gonzalez, and AISD bus monitor, Rogelia Lopez. Defendants Santamaria and Lopez
were employees linked to Defendant Maldonado and the assaults of M.R.A. Defendant Phillips
investigated the incident giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims, and Defendant Gonzalez was the AISD
PD Police Chief at the time of the incidents. Accordingly, the amendment will not prejudice
Defendants.
7. For these reasons identified herein, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court
grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to file her Second Amended Complaint.
B. Alternatively, this Court May Grant a New Trial.
8. This Court may grant a new trial because Plaintiff has significantly amended her
pleading to account for additional factual evidence uncovered to support her claims. See Exhibit
1. Specifically, Plaintiff has discovered through her own investigation additional incidents of
sexual assault on a minor student by an AISD employees illustrating AISD’s ample notice of
pervasive sexual assaults in the AISD system from 2013-2017. These additional occurrences of
sexual assault perpetrated against minor students bolster Plaintiff’s contention that AISD had
ample notice that minor students were at risk of sexual assault, and was deliberately indifferent to
that risk by failing to implement and/or enforce policies to protect its vulnerable students.
9. Additionally, Plaintiff has discovered new evidence, indicating that AISD installed
cameras on all school buses in response to the 2014-15 assaults mentioned above. See id. at n.8.
This evidence conclusively shows that AISD knew that if its buses were not monitored, its students
were vulnerable when alone with AISD employees. While AISD installed these cameras, a news
article reporting on M.R.A.’s assault indicated that “[AISD] only check[s] [the cameras] when
there is an incident reported.” Id. (“All AISD busses [sic] are armed with cameras, we were told
they only check them when there is an incident reported.”) Upon information and belief, this
statement was given to Fox7Austin by a representative of AISD, and therefore represents a policy
of AISD. This policy directly contradicts the stated intention of Defendant AISD’s director of
Transportation, Kris Hafezizadeh that the district added cameras to its school buses because: “We
want to know what goes on inside of our buses.” Id. at n.9. AISD had notice of the risk to its
minor students, it knew how to monitor its buses to protect such vulnerable students, and yet, it
enacted a policy that did nothing to effectuate adequate protections.
10. Plaintiff has further discovered through independent investigation a news article
from April 27, 2017, detailing an assault of a minor student in 2017 by a teacher, and describing 3
additional sexual assault cases reopened by the AISD PD after initially closing the files
prematurely. See id. at n.7. Also attached to Exhibit 1 is the Complaint filed in the United States
District Court in the Western District of Texas as a result of the 2017 assault which details the
2017 assault and other assaults perpetrated against AISD students. Plaintiff fully incorporates
Exhibit 1 and its attachment as if fully re-stated herein.
11. Further, Plaintiff alleges an additional deficient policy of AISD which caused the
deprivation of M.R.A.’s constitutional rights. In response to Maldonado’s arrest, Fox7Austin
reported that “[r]ight now AISD buses are only required to have at least one adult on board at all
times.” Id. at n.8. Police Chief Gonzalez additionally stated that “I do know that the aids at some
point have to leave the bus to escort other students to the school.” Id. These statements, upon
information and belief, represent the official policy of Defendant AISD which only requires one
adult to be present on AISD school buses. This loophole in AISD’s bus monitor policy,
presumably enacted to protect the rights and welfare of its minor students, illustrates the pattern of
AISD’s deliberate indifference to protect its students completely.
12. Plaintiff exercised due diligence to discover this evidence before the Court’s Order
was signed. See Compass Tech., Inc.. v. Tseng Labs., Inc., 71 F.3d 1125, 1130 (3d Cir. 1995). In
addition to Plaintiff’s extensive investigation, Plaintiff and Defendant AISD had begun the process
of exchanging discovery when this Court’s March 31, 2020 Order was signed. Specifically,
Plaintiff had served Requests for Production and Requests for Admission on Defendant AISD on
March 23, 2020, and Interrogatories on March 25, 2020. Due to the COVID-19 crisis closing
schools, including Defendant AISD, the Parties signed a Rule 11 Agreement on March 26, 2020,
extending Defendant’s deadline to respond until May 18, 2020. Exhibit 2. Absent such
agreement, Defendant’s responses would have been due on April 22, 2020 and April 24, 2020. Id.
Plaintiff fully believes that discovery would have uncovered significant factual support for her
pled allegations, and had planned to amend her petition timely upon receipt of Defendant AISD’s
discovery responses.
13. The additional factual support contained in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint
corrects the deficiencies noted in this Court’s March 31, 2020 Order, and therefore would justify
a different ruling at a new proceeding. See Compass Tech, 71 F.3d at 1130-31. As Plaintiff has
corrected the deficiencies in her Complaint, such Complaint would not be subject to dismissal
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and would survive in a new trial of the matter.
III. CONCLUSION
14. Plaintiff has rectified the deficiencies noted in this Court’s March 31, 2020, Order
of dismissal for failure to state a claim. The Second Amended Complaint Attached hereto as
Exhibit 1 definitively states a claim upon which relief can be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title
IX, and Texas tort law, and is well-supported by factual allegations. Plaintiff does not seek leave
to file an amended complaint for delay or in bad faith, but so that justice may be done.
Additionally, in a review of this Second Amended Complaint under the strictures of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Plaintiff’s case would survive in a new trial of the matter.
Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully asks this honorable Court to grant her leave to amend her
Complaint, or in the alternative, grant a new trial so that she may seek justice for the deprivation
of the minor M.R.A.’s protected rights under the United States Constitution.
Respectfully submitted,
AMARO LAW FIRM
R. James Amaro
SBN: 24036134
Matthew A. Elwell
SBN: 24082962
2500 E. TC Jester Blvd., Ste. 525
Houston, Texas 77008
713.864.1941 (Tel.)
713.864.1942 (Fax)
fax@amarolawfirm.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
-AND-
KALLINEN LAW PLLC
/s/ Randall L. Kallinen_____

Randall L. Kallinen
State Bar of Texas No. 00790995
511 Broadway Street
Telephone: 713.320.3785
FAX: 713.893.6737
Email: AttorneyKallinen@aol.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and exact copy of the foregoing Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint and in the Alternative Motion for New
Trial was served on the 29th day of April 2020, by causing this document to be filed with the
Court’s CM/ECF program which will provide notice to the following parties and counsel:
Clay T. Grover
Jamie L. Houston
ROGERS, MORRIS & GLOVER, L.L.P.
5718 Westheimer, Suite 1200
Attorney for Defendant
R. James Amaro
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
In accordance with Local Rule CV-7(h), the undersigned hereby certifies that Plaintiff’s
counsel conferred with Defendant’s counsel regarding this motion and the corresponding
pleadings. Defendant’s counsel is opposed. Counsel for Defendant is opposed to Plaintiff’s motion
as it would revive Plaintiff’s case and is adverse to his client’s interest.
Matthew A. Elwell
Case 1:19-cv-00586-RP Document 30-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 1 of 74
Exhibit 1

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DVISION
Plaintiff,

DISTRICT, et al., COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
DEMAND FOR JURY
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
TO THE HONORABLE ROBERT L. PITMAN:
COMES NOW CRYSTAL AYON, A/N/F OF M.R.A., A MINOR, Plaintiff, in the above
styled and numbered cause, and files this, her Second Amended Complaint, complaining of Austin
Independent School District, Cesar Maldonado, Claudia Santamaria, Detective Alex Phillips,
Police Chief Ashley Gonzalez, and Rogelia Lopez, Defendants, and would respectfully show unto
this Honorable Court the following:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This case is brought by Crystal Ayon, mother of a minor child, M.R.A., for damages
resulting from the repeated sexual assault and molestation of M.R.A. by a school bus driver, Cesar
Maldonado (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Maldonado”), employed by Austin Independent
School District (hereinafter referred to as AISD”). Rogelia Lopez (hereinafter referred to as
“Defendant Lopez”) was the AISD school bus monitor responsible for ensuring that inappropriate
activity was monitored, prevented, reported and/or responded to in accordance with AISD policies.
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1

Defendant Claudia Santamaria (“Defendant Santamaria”) was responsible for reviewing the school
bus video tapes to ensure students were safe from would-be predators like Defendant Maldonado.
2. M.R.A, only five years old at the time, endured months of sexual abuse even though
bus camera footage clearly captured the abuse and Defendant Lopez knew of the abuse. The bus
camera footage was either not reviewed or, horrifically, viewed1 and ignored by Defendant Claudia
Santamaria. This failure to protect students from sexual assault is systematic pattern and practice
of AISD. Defendants’ actions violated the Constitutional rights of the minor child, M.R.A, and
her mother. This lawsuit seeks relief for the harm caused by Defendants’ unlawful actions arising
from violations of M.R.A.’s federal civil rights committed by the named Defendants.
3. AISD employed law enforcement officers Police Chief Gonzalez and Detective
Phillips who created an atmosphere of sexual harassment and probability of future sexual assaults
for multiple failures to properly investigate and prosecute prior sexual assault cases at AISD prior
to the instant case.
4. This action seeks actual damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages,
attorneys’ fees, taxable costs of court, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and equitable
relief as allowed by law for Defendants’ violations of the United States Constitution, made
actionable by 42 U.S.C. §1983 and by Title IX, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688.
5. This action also seeks actual damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages,
taxable costs of court, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law, for each
Individual Defendant’s tortious conduct under state law.
6. Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues triable to a jury.
1
Pursuant to FRCP 8 Plaintiff’s demands for relief may include relief in the alternative or different kinds of relief.

II. PARTIES
7. Plaintiff, CRYSTAL AYON, A/N/F OF M.R.A., A MINOR (“Plaintiff”), is an
individual and citizen of the State of Texas, residing in Austin, Travis County, Texas.
8. Defendant, AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT (“Defendant AISD”),
is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a political subdivision of the State of Texas operating
within Austin, Travis County, Texas. Defendant AISD is responsible for the policies, practices,
and customs of its school district, as well as the hiring, training, supervision, control, and discipline
of its employees. Defendant AISD was the employer of Defendants Lopez, Maldonado, and
Santamaria at all times material to this suit. This Defendant has been served, appeared with
counsel, and answered this lawsuit.
9. Defendant Cesar Maldonado (“Defendant Maldonado”), is currently incarcerated in
a Texas state prison. At all times material to this suit, he was employed as a bus driver by Austin
Independent School District. Each of the acts complained of arise from the conduct of Defendant
Maldonado while acting under the color of state law and were committed within the scope of his
employment with the Austin Independent School District. Defendant Maldonado is sued in both
his individual capacity and in his official capacity as an employee of the Austin Independent
School District. Defendant Maldonado can be served at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Michael Unit at 2664 FM 2054, Tennessee Colony, Texas 75886.
10. Defendant Rogelia Lopez (“Defendant Lopez”) is a resident of the State of Texas.
At all times material to this suit, she was employed as a bus monitor by Austin Independent School
District. Each of the acts complained of arise from the conduct of Defendant Lopez while acting
under the color of state law and were committed within the scope of her employment with the
Austin Independent School District. Defendant Lopez is sued in both her individual capacity and

in her official capacity as an employee of the Austin Independent School District. Defendant
Lopez can be served at 10012 Anahuac Trail, Austin, Texas 78748.
11. Defendant Claudia Santamaria (“Defendant Santamaria”) is a resident of the State
of Texas. At all times material to this suit, she was employed as an assistant principal by Austin
Independent School District. Each of the acts complained of arise from the conduct of Defendant
Santamaria while acting under the color of state law and were committed within the scope of her
employment with the Austin Independent School District. Defendant Santamaria is sued in both
her individual capacity and in her official capacity as an employee of the Austin Independent
School District. Defendant Claudia Santamaria can be served at 1928 Antone St., Austin, Texas
78723.
12. Defendant Detective Alex Phillips is an employee of the AISD Police Department.
He may be served through AISD President, Geronimo Rodriguez, at 4000 S. I-H Frontage Rd.,
Austin, Texas 78704.
13. Defendant Police Chief Ashley Gonzalez is an employee of the AISD Police
Department. He may be served through AISD President, Geronimo Rodriguez, at 4000 S. I-H
Frontage Rd., Austin, Texas 78704.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
14. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the court has original, federal question jurisdiction
over Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title IX claims against Defendants. The Court has
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)
because such claims are so related to the federal claims in that all of such federal and state claims
form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
15. Venue is proper in this cause in the Western District of Texas, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391(b)(2), because all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this cause
of action occurred in a county under the Austin Division, Western District of Texas.
IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. DEFENDANT MALDONADO’S SEXUAL ASSAULT OF M.R.A.
16. Plaintiff, Crystal Ayon, is the mother of M.R.A, a minor child. M.R.A. was five
(5) years old at the time of the occurrences described herein. M.R.A. attended Uphaus Early
Childhood Center in the Austin Independent School District during the time period of the
occurrences described herein, beginning on or about March 1, 2018 and continuing through May
23, 2018. Every day M.R.A. would ride the bus to school to receive an education.
17. At all material times, AISD was receiving federal funding, as contemplated by Title
IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. for its activities including financial aid and research grants, among
other sources. The activities of AISD and these Defendants affects interstate commerce.
18. Defendant Maldonado was the AISD bus driver that drove M.R.A. to school every
day. Beginning at least as early as March 1, 2018, Defendant Maldonado engaged in a series of
sexual assaults of M.R.A.
19. At all times relevant to this action and on all occasions of sexual assault by
Defendant Maldonado of M.R.A, the school buses 2 driven by Maldonado were equipped with
video recording devices that captured and recorded the activities of the students, the bus monitor,
and the bus driver. Upon information and belief, the video recording devices installed on the buses
were intended to ensure the safety, welfare, and rights of children in the care of Defendant AISD.
20. Defendant Santamaria was responsible as a representative of AISD and acting
under color of state law to review school bus camera footage to ensure the safety, welfare, and
2
Maldonado drove AISD bus #1064 primarily, but also drove bus #0550 temporarily while his primarily assigned bus
was inactive for repairs.

rights of M.R.A. Upon information and belief, in March of 2018, and possibly before, Defendant
Santamaria and/or someone working under the direct supervision of this Defendant, witnessed the
molestation and fondling of M.R.A. but did not report the incident as law requires. Alternatively,
upon information and belief, Defendant AISD’s policy, as promulgated by Defendant Santamaria
and other AISD policymakers such as the Board of Trustees was to leave all video footage from
school buses unreviewed until an incident was reported, showing deliberate indifference to welfare
and Constitutional rights of its students, including M.R.A. Due to this breach of duty, Defendant
Maldonado’s molestation of M.R.A. continued.
Defendant Maldonado of M.R.A, the school bus driven by Defendant Maldonado included a bus
monitor, Defendant Lopez. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lopez’s presence was
intended to ensure the safety, welfare, and rights of children in the care of Defendant AISD. Upon
further information and belief, in March of 2018, and possibly before, Defendant Lopez witnessed
the molestation and fondling of M.R.A. but did not report the incident as law requires.
Alternatively, Defendant Lopez knew or should have known that Defendant Maldonado would
molest M.R.A. when she exited the bus, and acting under color of state law, demonstrated
deliberate indifference to the Constitutional rights of students, such as M.R.A. Due to this breach
of duty, the molestation continued.
22. On May 29, 2018, the AISD Police Department received a report of a bus driver
who inappropriately touched a female student. The AISD Police Department dispatched an officer
to the Uphaus Early Childhood Center at 5200 Friedrich Lane, Austin, Texas 78744.
23. Officer Daryl Seagrave’s AISD Police Department report #18-001707 (“Report”)
concerned the statements made by M.R.A.’s parents, Plaintiff and Joaquin Rodriguez-Escobar.

M.R.A.’s parents reported out-of-character behavior that M.R.A. had begun exhibiting during the
two (2) weeks preceding the date of the Report. Plaintiff reported that M.R.A. would become
extremely distraught and cry each morning before boarding her school bus. Plaintiff additionally
reported that M.R.A. expressed fear of using the restroom, to the point that M.R.A. urinated in the
family room of the family’s residence.
24. Preceding the Report made to the AISD Police Department, Plaintiff stated that
M.R.A. told Plaintiff that “the driver touched [her].” The driver to whom M.R.A. referred was
Maldonado. When Plaintiff inquired as to where Maldonado touched M.R.A., M.R.A. indicated
her vagina.
25. Following notification of the allegations against Maldonado, the AISD Police
Department obtained the surveillance camera hard drives from AISD bus #1064 and AISD bus
#0550 from Defendant AISD. These hard drives and the video footage contained therein had not
been reviewed or analyzed at any time during the period from March 1, 2018 to May 29, 2018, the
date the AISD Police Department acquired them. In the alternative, if the footage was reviewed
or analyzed during that period, no action was taken by Defendant AISD with respect to the content
of the footage.
26. The August 10, 2018 Probable Cause Affidavit prepared by Corporal Alex Phillips
recounts several observable instances of sexual assault committed by Maldonado against M.R.A.
on various dates and times. These observable instances of sexual assault were captured by the
cameras in the AISD school buses and stored on Defendant AISD hard drives until such hard drives
were obtained by the AISD Police Department. A summary of said instances 3 follows herein:
27. Detective Phillips has been employed by AISD PD since 2002. Upon information
3
No discovery has occurred so Plaintiff may find more examples of sexual assault.

and belief, he does not possess any specialized training in sexual assault or sexual misconduct
investigation. Despite this fact, Detective Phillips is routinely assigned to investigate sex crimes
for AISD PD.
28. May 17, 2018: Bus monitor Lopez exits the school bus when it arrives at
Uphaus Early Childhood Center, leaving Maldonado alone on the bus with the minor students,
including five (5) year-old M.R.A. Maldonado closes the doors to the bus. Approximately one
(1) minute later, Maldonado is seen walking from the driver’s seat to M.R.A.’s seat on the second
row of the bus, where M.R.A. is seen laying down with her head near the aisle of the bus.
Maldonado is seen reaching to M.R.A.’s prone mid/lower region, with his right arm and shoulder
moving back and forth in the vicinity of M.R.A.’s mid/lower region. Maldonado is seen to look
back over his left shoulder. After approximately 30 seconds, Maldonado is observed to stop this
activity, and stand up straight, hovering over M.R.A. Seconds later, Maldonado is seen to lean
back down, and Maldonado’s right arm and shoulder is again seen moving back and forth in the
same mid/lower region of M.R.A.’s body. Approximately two (2) minutes elapse during the period
in which Maldonado’s arm is observed moving back and forth in the vicinity of M.R.A.’s
mid/lower region. During this time, the Defendant AISD’s school bus cameras capture Maldonado
looking over his shoulder approximately thirteen (13) times. This footage was not reviewed prior
to these incidents being reported to the AISD Police Department, or alternatively, this footage was
reviewed by Defendant Santamaria or another AISD representative and no action was taken.
29. May 21, 2018: Bus monitor Lopez again exits the school bus when it arrives
at the school. Maldonado is observed to sit to M.R.A.’s right as she sits in her seat while covered
with a blanket. Maldonado is observed to cover himself with M.R.A.’s blanket, pulling M.R.A.
toward him with his left arm. Maldonado’s shoulder and arm can be seen moving on the left side

of M.R.A.’s body. This footage was not reviewed prior to these incidents being reported to the
AISD Police Department, or alternatively, this footage was reviewed by Defendant Santamaria or
another AISD representative and no action was taken.
30. May 23, 2018: Bus monitor Lopez again exits the school bus when it arrives
at the school. M.R.A. is seen lying on her seat, with her head near the aisle of the bus. Maldonado
is seen to act as if he is sitting on M.R.A.’s head, commenting to other students on the bus as he
does so. Maldonado is seen to reach over M.R.A. with his right arm. Maldonado’s arm is seen to
be positioned over M.R.A.’s mid/lower region, moving back and forth. Maldonado is then
observed to leave M.R.A. and her seat for approximately one (1) minute before returning.
Maldonado is again seen to reach over M.R.A.’s mid/lower region while moving his right arm
back and forth. Maldonado is seen leaving M.R.A. a second time before again returning to resume
his conduct for a third time. Maldonado is seen leaving M.R.A. a third time before again returning
to resume his conduct for the fourth time. While Maldonado’s hand is seen positioned over
M.R.A.’s mid/lower region, Maldonado is observed to look over his shoulder approximately four
(4) times. Maldonado is seen to leave M.R.A.’s seat for the fourth time and is observed using his
left hand to adjust his genitals from the outside of his shorts. This footage was not reviewed prior
to these incidents being reported to the AISD Police Department, or alternatively, this footage was
reviewed by Defendant Santamaria or another AISD representative and no action was taken.
31. M.R.A. was forensically interviewed at the Center for Child Protection on June 13,
2018. Maldonado originally denied M.R.A.’s allegations, but recanted that denial on August 8,
2018. On that date, Maldonado met with Corporal Alex Phillips and admitted that he had touched
M.R.A.’s genitals through her clothing several times. Maldonado stated that this conduct began
in March of 2018. Maldonado estimated that he had touched M.R.A.’s vaginal area on ten (10)

occasions. Maldonado stated that when the school bus would arrive at school, Lopez would leave
the bus, and he would approach M.R.A.’s seat on the bus and molest her.
32. AISD and the Board has a pattern and practice of ignoring and non-reporting acts
of molestation. It was not until M.R.A. mustered up enough courage to tell her parents what
happened that something was done to stop Defendant Maldonado. Yet, AISD still did not act. It
was not until police investigation and intervention that AISD, finally, was forced to act.
33. AISD did not monitor or supervise their school bus monitors to check to see if the
monitors were with the students and school bus driver at all times. AISD and the Board failed to
create any policies regarding school bus monitors and their supervision and training which touched
upon leaving school bus drivers with students. AISD and the Board failed to implement policies
for review of the school bus cameras and for review of those charged with reviewing the camera
footage.
B. AISD HAS HAD AMPLE NOTICE OF THE RISKS OF SEVERE HARM TO ITS
STUDENTS
34. Defendant AISD has exhibited a pattern of deliberate indifference for years. In
2013 and 2014, another AISD employee molested children on an ongoing basis. This teacher,
Alfredo Andrade-Gaytan, molested multiple students, sometimes during school hours and in the
middle of his classroom. Gayton was sentenced to twenty-five (25) years in prison for the sexual
abuse of three students. The AISD Board of Trustees (“the Board”) was fully aware of these
incidents. The AISD Board of Trustees is the elected governing board of AISD in charge of the
policies, practices and procedures.
35. After the discovery of Gayton’s crimes, Defendant AISD including the Board was
put on notice of the need to monitor and supervise its employees’ interactions with students.

Parents at the school where Gayton taught called for cameras to be installed in the classroom. 4
Defendant AISD and the Board knew what it had to do to ensure the safety and wellbeing of its
students. Defendant AISD knew of the consequences that could result if it left students
unmonitored and supervised with its employees. Yet, Defendant AISD remained deliberately
indifferent to adopting policies that would protect its students.
36. In 2015, a minor six year-old child was sexually assaulted on an AISD bus by an
AISD bus driver, Ralph Leon Young. The sexual assault of the minor child occurred on an ongoing
basis from April 25, 2014 to April 17, 2015. It was not until two juvenile witnesses reported the
sexual assault of the minor child that any attention and action was brought to the heinous acts
occurring on the AISD school bus. The Board was fully aware of these incidents. 5 Around May
11, 2015 an AISD official statement, circulated to the members of the Board stated:
The safety and security of all students is the top priority at Walnut Creek
Elementary School. It is with regret that we inform the public about a warrant that
has been issued for the arrest of an AISD bus driver on a charge of aggravated
sexual assault, for an incident involving a Walnut Creek Elementary School
student. The bus driver was terminated April 27. Counseling and other student
support services will be available on campus for students, families and staff.
Id. On May 8, 2015 Board President Gina Hinojosa stated: "It should never happen once.
Unfortunately, something bad happened here and we're doing everything to make sure that doesn't
happen again."
37. While each and every member of the 2017 Board was aware of the Gayton and
Young sexual assaults Board member at least Jayme Mathias, Amber Elenz, and Ann Teich were
4
Daily Mail Reporter, Texas teacher charged with sexually assaulting six-year-old kindergarten who ‘kept her in the
classroom while the others were on recess, DAILY MAIL (June 20, 2014 12:41 P.M.),
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2659161/Texas-teacher-charged-sexually-assaulting-kindergarten-
student.html (last visited Apr. 28, 2020).
5
KVUE Staff, Bus driver accused of assaulting students out on bond, KVUE (May 11, 2015 5:16 P.M.)
https://www.kvue.com/article/news/education/bus-driver-accused-of-assaulting-students-out-on-bond/152555822
(last visited Apr. 28, 2020).

members of the Board during all three events as were Board members Amber Elenz, and Ann
Teich.
38. The AISD bus driver’s acts were witnessed by an AISD Assistant Principal, Juan
Zea. Zea witnessed the AISD bus driver sexually assaulting the minor child but did not report the
incident. Due to the failure of this AISD official to report the sexual assault, the minor student
continued to be sexually assaulted on an ongoing basis. It was not until two students reported the
sexual assaults on April 17, 2015 that AISD investigated. Even then, the AISD bus driver was not
fired until April 27, 2015 - ten days after the sexual assaults were reported. Young was later
convicted and sentenced to thirty (30) years in prison. The Board was fully aware of these
incidents.
39. After the sexual assault of the minor AISD student in 2015, Defendant AISD
installed cameras on every bus. “The newer model school buses at Walnut Creek have cameras
on board but the bus involved in the alleged assault did not, according to [Eric] Mendez, [AISD
police chief]. He said since the incident, all buses have been replaced with ones that are equipped
with cameras.” 6
40. Defendant AISD’s reaction to the sexual assault of the minor student was to install
cameras on all buses in the school district. Defendant AISD, including the Board, knew that if its
buses were not monitored, its students were vulnerable when alone with AISD employees. Instead
of following through with the policy of monitoring the AISD buses, Defendant AISD left the
camera footage unreviewed until harm had already occurred and had been reported. The sexual
assault and harm of M.R.A was an entirely predictable consequence of the failure of AISD and the
Board to adopt a policy of reviewing the camera footage from the buses and actually monitoring
6
Id.

the activity therein.
41. An April 27, 2017 media article points to the reopening of three additional sexual
assault cases by students that were at least inadequately investigated and at worst deliberately not
investigated properly. In 2017 Austin Independent School District police officers were renewing
their review of three different cases of alleged sexual assault at three Austin schools. Parents of a
Lanier High Schooler say AISD police closed their investigation too soon after she said a fellow
student assaulted her in the bathroom in 2015. In 2014 at Hart Elementary, a boy said a school
staff member assaulted him in a bathroom. These cases came to light after parents of a 4-year-old
girl demanded school police reopen their case in 2017, saying medical records showed signs of
sexual assault which happened at Boone Elementary in the AISD. 7
42. In the Hart Elementary School case, a Kindergartener reported to a parent that a
cafeteria worker had touched the student’s genitals in a restroom at the school. After speaking to
the Kindergartener and the parent, an AISD Police Officer went to Hart Elementary and reported
that no pertinent evidence existed on the school’s surveillance video, and AISD would therefore
decline to pursue an investigation. After a hospitalization due to pain resulting from the assault,
AISD Detective Phillips met with the Kindergartner. Detective Phillips told the mother that since
the Kindergartener could not provide a specific enough description of the individual, AISD PD’s
investigation would be officially closed.
43. In the Lanier High School case, a high school freshman student was sexually
assaulted after being forced into a restroom stall on April 1, 2015, by a fellow student. The
freshman told a classmate about her attack, who promptly reported the assault to the Lanier High
7
Tina Shively, Austin ISD police re-opening three sexual assault cases, KVUE (Apr. 27, 2017 10:20 P.M.), sexual
assault which happened at Boone Elementary in the AISD. https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/austin-isd-
police-re-opening-three-sexual-assault-cases/434770053 (last visited Apr. 28, 2020).

School Staff. Surveillance footage of the incident was reportedly watched by AISD police officers,
which declined to investigate the incident further because the exact date and time of the assault
was unclear, and therefore, they could not find evidence of the assault. Where the video footage
did not conclusively prove the assault took place, AISD and AISD PD declined any further
investigation, despite having notice of the assault on its campus.
44. The Boone Elementary School case, resulted in a lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court in the Western District of Texas on May 2, 2017. The Complaint in this case is
attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and Plaintiff hereby incorporates its contents as if fully restated
herein.
45. In this case, the minor student was involved the in Pre-Kindergarten 3 Program at
the school, and as such, AISD had complete control over the minor. On February 7, 2017, after
spending 3 hours at school, the minor student was picked up by her mother, who soon discovered
that the child’s genitals were bruised and bleeding, and that her undergarments were soaked in
blood. The minor was admitted surgery that evening for treatment of “vaginal trauma” and
“emergent surgical repair of her vaginal lacerations.” The minor’s surgeon diagnosed the cause
of the injuries as sexual assault.
46. AISD Detective Phillips reportedly opened an investigation into the minor’s assault
on February 7, 2017. On February 20, 2017, the minor identified her Teacher as her attacker, and
her mother contacted Detective Phillips, who indicated that the Teacher had not yet been
interviewed despite being put on administrative leave on February 8, 2017. On February 22, 2017,
a classmate of the minor’s indicated that she too had been assaulted by the same Teacher.
47. Incredibly, AISD closed the minor’s case on February 28, 2017, citing insufficient
evidence to continue investigation. AISD PD never processed the minor’s rape kit collected at the

hospital. AISD allowed the Teacher to return to Boone Elementary on March 20, 2017. AISD
and AISD PD never provided an explanation of their findings related to the alleged sexual assaults.
Upon information and belief, this accused sexual predator still teaches in the AISD school system.
48. Detective Phillips has demonstrated a pattern of concluding such investigations
quickly, thereby depriving victims of remedies and accommodations owed them as victims of
sexual assault, and condoning a culture within AISD that sexual assaults are not investigated.
49. Upon information and belief, M.R.A.’s protracted assaults and the foregoing
examples represent a mere sample of the cases of sexual assault swept under the rug, or ignored
by Defendants and those acting in concert. AISD and the Board had full knowledge of the prior
sexual assaults committed by its employees in 2013, 2014,2015, and 2017. Yet, despite this
knowledge, Defendant AISD and the Board did not adopt a policy that would protect M.R.A.
Cameras were installed on all AISD buses but either the footage was reviewed and no action was
taken, or the footage was not watched until incidents were reported. Defendants’ actions to remedy
the hostile educational environment in response to reports of sexual assault were inadequate and/or
completely insufficient. AISD and AISD PD have repeatedly demonstrated their absolute reliance
on video footage to corroborate student reports of abuse, yet AISD has not taken the crucial steps
to develop policies and procedures to review this footage for misconduct and/or report misconduct
when it was uncovered. Maldonado knew that the bus camera footage was not being reviewed,
and he knewthat he could continue to assault M.R.A. or any other student.
C. AISD’S REACTIVE POLICIES ENACTED TO PROTECT ITS STUDENTS WERE SO

INADEQUATE AS TO CONSTITUTE DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE
i. AISD’s policy was to only review bus camera footage after an incident
had been reported
50. From March 1, 2018 to May 29, 2018, Defendant AISD and the Board had

everything it needed to stop Defendant Maldonado from committing these heinous criminal acts.
Instead, its policy was to let to let the video footage from the bus sit unreviewed until after an
incident was reported.8 Defendant AISD’s failure to actively review the video footage from its
buses constitutes deliberate indifference to protecting the children that depend on AISD for safe
transport adequately.
51. Defendant AISD including the Board knew exactly what it had to do to protect the
children on its school buses and what was at stake. AISD including the Board knew of the prior
sexual assaults of its students in 2013, 2014, and 2015. Defendant AISD including the Board
knew these sexual assaults were committed by AISD employees in unsupervised and unmonitored
buses and classrooms. AISD installed cameras on all of its buses in response to the 2015 sexual
assault of a student that occurred on a bus.
52. Defendant AISD’s director of transportation, Kris Hafezizadeh said in response to
the Board adding new cameras on its buses in 2016, “We want to know what goes on inside of
our buses.” 9 Instead, Defendant AISD and the Board looked the other way and waited until the
sexual assault of M.R.A was reported to see what was going on inside of its buses. The harm that
M.R.A was subjected to was an entirely foreseeable consequence of not monitoring and
supervising what occurred on AISD buses. Defendant AISD could have prevented the harm to
M.R.A. had it actually reviewed the camera footage to see what was going on in its buses.
53. Alternatively, if Defendant Santamaria and/or another AISD representative
reviewed the camera footage during the period where Defendant Maldonado repeatedly assaulted
8
Lauren Reid, AISD Police Chief Comments on Bus Driver Accused of Sexually Assault Child, FOX 7 AUSTIN (
August 13, 2018), https://www.fox7austin.com/news/aisd-police-chief-comments-on-bus-driver-accused-of-
sexually-assaulting-child (last visited Apr. 28, 2020)
9
Kevin Schwaller, Board approves new cameras for AISD school buses, KXAN Austin (2016),
https://www.kxan.com/news/board-approves-new-cameras-for-aisd-school-buses/amp/ (last visited Apr. 28, 2020).

M.R.A., no action was taken to stop the assaults or protect AISD students from a sexual predator.
ii. AISD’s policy was to require only one adult to be on the bus with students
54. AISD buses have on board both a bus driver and a bus monitor. Upon information
and belief, the bus monitor’s presence was intended to ensure the safety, welfare, and rights of
children in the care of Defendant AISD. The bus monitor is tasked with reporting any problems
or concerns that occur on the bus. Defendant AISD’s policy, despite the presence of a bus
monitor, is to only require one adult on board the bus at all times and it was wide spread practice
that monitors would leave the students with the bus driver. 10 Such a policy and custom
inadequately supervises and monitors AISD employees, as is evidently clear from the assaults
perpetrated against M.R.A. Not requiring the bus monitor to remain on the bus, in conjunction
with AISD’s policy to only review camera footage after an incident is reported illustrates the
District’s and Board’s deliberate indifference to the safety of its students on its school buses.
55. The bus monitor on M.R.A.’s bus was Defendant Lopez. Ms. Lopez was not on
board on any of the occasions upon which Defendant Maldonado sexually assaulted M.R.A. On
all of these occasions, Defendant Lopez was escorting other children off of the bus and into the
school. However, upon information and belief, Defendant Lopez had knowledge of the
inappropriate and horrific actions undertaken by Defendant Maldonado on M.R.A. Nonetheless,
Defendant Lopez did nothing to stop Defendant Maldonado. Defendant Maldonado took
advantage of this policy and assaulted M.R.A. in the absence of Defendant Lopez. Furthermore, it
was a well-known and well-established custom at AISD that bus monitors may leave the bus driver
alone with the AISD students. Many AISD bus monitors left bus drivers alone with students prior
to the sexual assaults and molestations of M.R.A.
10
See Reid, supra note 8

56. Defendant AISD’s policy of having a bus monitor on board along with the driver
was inadequate to protect M.R.A. Despite, this policy of having a bus monitor, Defendant AISD
also only required for one adult to be on board the bus with students. After AISD employees
sexually assaulted students in 2013, 2014, and 2015, Defendant AISD knew of the consequence
of having its employees alone, unmonitored, and unsupervised with AISD students. Instead of
adopting a policy of having the bus monitor stay with the bus driver at all times, Defendant AISD’s
policy left Defendant Maldonado alone with M.R.A. without the presence of another adult.
Subsequently, the predictable consequence of leaving a student alone, unmonitored, and
unsupervised with an AISD employee enabled M.R.A.’s assaults. This harm was predictable and
could have been prevented but for Defendant AISD’s and the Board’s deliberate indifference to
adopting effective policies to protect M.R.A.
iii. AISD’s deliberate indifference in adopting policies that would protect

M.R.A. resulted in predictable harm
57. Defendant Maldonado sexually assaulted M.R.A. for months while acting under the
color of state law and employed by AISD as a bus driver. AISD and the Board had all of the
knowledge it needed on the bus cameras to put an end to these heinous acts, yet its policy was to
let the camera footage sit unreviewed until an incident was reported. AISD’s policy of letting this
camera footage sit unreviewed and unmonitored is deliberate indifference. The 2013, 2014, and
2015 sexual assaults of AISD students by AISD employees put Defendant AISD on actual notice
of the harm that can occur when AISD employees are allowed to be alone, unsupervised, and
unmonitored with students. Yet, Defendant AISD’s reactive policy of installing cameras, but not
actually watching footage from the cameras, undercuts any steps it tried to take after the prior
sexual assaults in 2013, 2014, and 2015. Alternatively, if Defendant Santamaria and/or another
AISD representative reviewed the camera footage during the period where Defendant Maldonado

repeatedly assaulted M.R.A., no action was taken to stop the assaults or protect AISD students
from a sexual predator. As a result, M.R.A. was sexually assaulted for months by Defendant
Maldonado.
58. Defendant AISD and the Board had notice of the harm that can happen to its
students when they are left with AISD employees alone, unsupervised, and unmonitored.
Defendant AISD’s policy of having a bus monitor ride on board with the bus driver and students
was meant to ensure the welfare and safety of students. Yet, Defendant AISD only required one
adult to be on board with the students at all times. This policy undercuts the purpose of AISD’s
bus monitors. As a result, Defendant Maldonado took advantage of Defendant AISD’s deliberate
indifference and waited until Defendant Lopez left the bus to sexually assault M.R.A.
V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
A. 42 U.S.C. § 1983
59. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the foregoing allegations contained in all
paragraphs above as fully set forth herein.
60. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, M.R.A. had the right as a public school student
to be free from damage to her bodily integrity and free from sexual assault by school employees.
See Doe v. Taylor Indep. Sch. Dist., 15 F.3d 443, 445 (5th Cir. 1997).
61. At all times material to this suit, Defendant Maldonado was a state actor acting
under the color of state law and employed by Defendant AISD. At all times material to this suit,
Defendant Maldonado was employed in a position of state employment and was placed in control,
by virtue of his position of state employment, of the bus which M.R.A. took to school. At all times
material to this suit, Defendant Maldonado acted in his official capacity and abused the state
control and authority he possessed by virtue of his being a state actor under the color of state law.

62. Defendant Maldonado violated M.R.A.’s rights to her bodily integrity by sexually
assaulting her on an ongoing basis from March 1, 2018 to May 23, 2018.
63. Defendant AISD and the Board subjected M.R.A. to violations of her rights to
bodily integrity by failing to investigate Defendant Maldonado’s heinous actions, failing to
supervise Defendant Maldonado, and manifesting deliberate indifference to the ongoing sexual
assault of M.R.A. by failing to adopt and effectuate policies that would have protected her from
the harm complained of herein.
64. Defendant AISD has unconstitutional customs or policies of, at least: (1) failing to
investigate evidence of criminal acts against AISD students in the nature of violations of their right
to personal security and bodily integrity; (2) failing to supervise AISD employees with regard to
maintaining, preserving, and protecting students from violations of their right to bodily integrity;
(3) deliberate indifference to the conduct Defendant Maldonado and other prior predatory AISD
employees by failing to adopt and effectuate policies that would have prevented such actions; (4)
allowing monitors to leave students alone with bus drivers; (5) failing to review school bus videos;
(6) failure to monitor monitors; and (7) failure to monitor school bus drivers.
65. AISD at the Board had notice and knowledge of a pattern of sexual assaults that
occurred in 2013, 2014, and 2015 when its employees were left alone, unsupervised, and
unmonitored with its students, yet AISD never adopted a sufficient policy to prevent or stop such
acts. AISD’s reactive policies of installing bus cameras and placing bus monitors onboard buses
was undercut by AISD’s own deliberate indifference to the safety and bodily integrity of its
students, including M.R.A. AISD’s policy was to not review the bus camera footage until an
incident was reported and its contradictory policy to place a monitor on each bus, but only
requiring the presence of one adult on the bus at all times. These two policies resulted in the

predictable consequence of M.R.A. being deprived of her unconstitutional rights by an
unmonitored and unsupervised AISD employee. This is the essence of the deliberate indifference
standard under which AISD is clearly liable for § 1983 violations. See Doe v. Taylor Indep. Sch.
Dist., 15 F.3d 443, 445 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding that a school district could be held liable for
supervisory failures resulting in the molestation of the student only if those failures manifested a
deliberate indifference to the welfare of the school children.) (citing Gonzalez v. Ysleta
Independent School District, 996 F.2d 745, 753–60 (5th Cir.1993).
66. But for Defendants’ failure to adopt a policy that would have supervised and
monitored Defendant Maldonado, M.R.A. would not have been sexually assaulted and certainly
not repetitively and her constitutional rights would not have been violated. Defendant AISD’s
policies of not reviewing the bus camera footage and only requiring one adult on board on the bus
was the moving force behind M.R.A’s constitutional rights being violated. Littell v. Houston
Indep. Sch. Dist., 894 F.3d 622, 623 (5th Cir. 2018).
67. M.R.A.’s claims under § 1983 are actionable against Defendant Maldonado in his
individual capacity as well as his official capacity as a state actor acting under the color of state
law as an AISD employee. Defendant Maldonado’s actions were objectively unlawful,
unreasonable, and in violation of M.R.A.’s constitutional rights.
68. It was Defendant Santamaria’s responsibility to review school bus camera footage
to ensure the safety, welfare, and rights of M.R.A. Upon information and belief, in March of 2018,
and possibly before, Defendant Santamaria and/or someone working under the direct supervision
of this Defendant, witnessed the molestation and fondling of M.R.A. but did not report the incident
as law requires. Due to this breach of duty, the molestation continued. Defendant Santamaria’s
actions and/or inaction, constituting deliberate indifference, were the proximate cause of M.R.A.’s

mental anguish, emotional distress, psychological damage, physical pain, and deprivation of bodily
integrity. Perhaps in the alternative Defendant Santamaria was following an AISD custom of not
reviewing school bus videos.
Defendant Maldonado of M.R.A, the school bus driven by Defendant Maldonado included a bus
monitor, Defendant Lopez. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lopez’s presence was
intended to ensure the safety, welfare, and rights of children in the care of Defendant AISD. Upon
further information and belief, in March of 2018, and possibly before, Defendant Lopez witnessed
the molestation and fondling of M.R.A. but did not report the incident as law requires. Due to this
breach of duty, the molestation continued. Defendant Lopez’s actions and/or inaction, constituting
deliberate indifference, were the proximate cause of M.R.A.’s mental anguish, emotional distress,
psychological damage, physical pain, and deprivation of bodily integrity.
70. Perhaps in the alternative Defendant Lopez’s actions of leaving the bus driver alone
with children was a common custom repeated by many other AISD school bus monitors. AISD,
furthermore, did not monitor it’s school bus monitors to see if they were doing their job including
whether or not they stayed with the school bus driver and students. AISD and the Board failed to
supervise. In this regard AISD and the Board failed to supervise and train the bus monitors and
supervisors of bus monitors to stay with bus drivers when with the students. Had the monitors been
properly trained and supervised M.R.A. would not have been repeatedly molested (by
Maldonado’s own admission at least TEN times in three continuous months).
71. Defendant Maldonado, Defendant AISD and the Board’s actions and lack of
actions, constituting deliberate indifference, were the proximate cause of M.R.A.’s mental anguish,
emotional distress, psychological damage, physical pain, and loss of bodily integrity.

B. TITLE IX
72. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the foregoing allegations contained in all the
73. The sex-based harassment described in the foregoing allegations was so severe,
frequent, and objectively offensive that it deprived M.R.A. of access to educational opportunities
or benefits provided by the school.
74. The Defendants created and subjected M.R.A. to a hostile educational environment
in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) (“Title IX”),
because: (1) M.R.A. is a member of a protected class; (2) she was subjected to sexual harassment
in the form of a sexual assault by her bus driver; (3) she was subjected to harassment based on her
sex; (4) and she was subjected to a hostile educational environment created by Defendant AISD’s
lack of policies and procedures to protect her and its failure to investigate properly.
75. Title IX jurisprudence, as well as Department of Education regulations, have long
recognized that a single event of rape constitutes harassment so severe, pervasive, and offensive
that it deprives its victims of access to the educational opportunities provided by the school:
The more severe the conduct, the less need there is to show a repetitive series of
incidents to prove a hostile environment, particularly if the harassment is physical.
Indeed, a single or isolated incident of sexual harassment may create a hostile
environment if the incident is sufficiently severe. For instance, a single instance of
rape is sufficiently severe to create a hostile environment. 11
76. Regardless, in the circumstances giving rise to M.R.A.’s claims and others, a
significant history of faculty-on-student harassment, resulting from deliberate indifference, has
been permitted and allowed to continue at AISD for years.
77. Defendants and their affiliated officials had actual knowledge of the sexual assault
11
U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Office of Civil Rights, “Dear Colleague Letter (Apr. 4, 2011)
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.pdf (last visited Apr. 28, 2020)

and molestation of M.R.A. and previous sexual assaults and molestations of AISD students (supra).
Defendant AISD and the Board also had knowledge of its policies, or lack thereof, that caused
these assaults by its failure to investigate and discipline Plaintiff’s attacker in a timely manner and
consistent with its own policy and federal and state law on multiple occasions.
78. Defendants’ failure to investigate and respond adequately to prior reports of sexual
assault against students created an environment that put M.R.A., and other minor students at
enhanced risk of being sexually assaulted.
79. Defendants’ failure to respond promptly and appropriately to the sexual harassment
resulted in Plaintiff’s, on the basis of her sex, exclusion from participation in, being denied the
benefits of, and being subjected to discrimination in the Defendant AISD’s education program in
violation of Title IX.
80. Defendants failed to take immediate, effective remedial steps to resolve the
instances of sexual harassment and instead acted with deliberate indifference toward students who
brought sexual assault allegations, including M.R.A.
81. Defendant AISD persisted in its actions and inaction even after it had actual
knowledge of the harm suffered by its students including M.R.A. Even where action was taken to
remedy the hostile education environment in response to the numerous instances of sexual assault,
these actions were inadequate and/or completely insufficient.
82. Prior to 2018, and unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, Defendant Phillips, Defendant
Gonzalez, Defendant AISD and AISD PD conducted its investigations of sexual assault with the
goal of covering up the incident rather than bringing justice to victims.
83. The numerous incidents of Detective Phillips closing files for lack of evidence of
sexual assault despite medical conclusions and evidence to the contrary demonstrate that

Defendants named herein intentionally created a condition that ensured that reports of sexual
assault would not result in meaningful investigations into such allegations. Therefore, Defendants’
deliberate indifference to its students’ well-being cultivated an environment which emboldened
sexual predators, such as Maldonado to act with the security that such allegations would not be
investigated.
84. Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of behavior designed to discourage
and dissuade students and parents of students who had been sexually assaulted from seeking
prosecution and protection and from seeking to have sexual assaults from being fully investigated.
This policy and/or practice constituted disparate treatment of females and had a disparate impact
on female students.
85. M.R.A. has suffered emotional distress and psychological damage as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant AISD’s deliberate indifference to her rights under Title IX.
C. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
87. Defendant Maldonado’s actions caused intentional and severe emotional distress to
M.R.A. and his conduct was extreme and outrageous. Defendant Maldonado’s actions were
outrageous and extreme because he knew he was in a position of authority and that M.R.A. was
susceptible to emotional distress as a minor. Defendant Maldonado’s actions proximately caused
M.R.A.’s emotional distress.
D. ASSAULT AND BATTERY
paragraphs above as fully set forth herein

89. As a pendent state cause of action, at all times material and relevant herein,
Defendant Maldonado, by acts and/or omissions and under color of state law did then and there by
acts and/or omissions, intentionally, knowingly and/or recklessly cause severe personal injury to
Plaintiff through unconsented sexual physical contact.
90. Under Texas law, the cause of action for offensive sexual conduct is simply one for
assault and battery. Consequently, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Maldonado committed an
assault and battery upon Plaintiff. Said conduct of Defendant Maldonado was committed
intentionally, knowingly, and/or recklessly and was the proximate cause of the personal injuries
and emotional injuries to Plaintiff. Said injuries were the direct and immediate consequences of
Defendant Maldonado’s wrongful acts, and a natural and direct result of the assault and battery.
91. Defendant Maldonado committed an assault and battery upon Plaintiff by
intentionally and/or knowingly causing physical sexual contact with Plaintiff. Defendant
Maldonado knew or should have reasonably believed that Plaintiff would regard the contact as
offensive and/or provocative. Defendant Maldonado knew or should have known that the acts, as
previously described, were provocative, harmful, and/or offensive to Plaintiff. Said acts of
Defendant Maldonado were committed intentionally, knowingly, and/or recklessly, and they were
the proximate cause of bodily and emotional injuries to Plaintiff. Furthermore, said injuries were
the direct and immediate consequences of Defendant Maldonado’s tortious acts and a natural and
direct result of the sexual conduct.
92. At no time was Defendant Maldonado privileged to take the action described herein
as necessary. Moreover, Defendant Maldonado assault and battery of Plaintiff was unlawful and
not objectively reasonable.
VI. ATTORNEY’S FEES

93. Plaintiff would show that, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) and other law, Plaintiff
is entitled to recover from Defendants an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses.
VII. DAMAGES
94. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions and omissions, M.R.A.
suffered the following injuries and damages:
a. physical pain and suffering in the past;
b. mental anguish in the past and future;
c. reasonable and necessary expenses of medical and psychological treatment in
the past and future; and
d. physical, mental, and emotional impairment in the past and future.
VIII. PRAYER
95. For the above reasons, Plaintiff CRYSTAL AYON a/n/f M.R.A. prays that
Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein and that, upon final trial hereof, Plaintiff have
judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for the following:
a. Actual damages in an amount to be proven by the evidence at trial;
b. Pre-judgment and post judgment interest;
c. Costs of suit;
d. Attorney’s fees in an amount to be proven by the evidence at trial;
e. Punitive damages in an amount to be proven by the evidence at trial; and
f. All such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may show herself justly
entitled.
Respectfully submitted,

THE AMARO LAW FIRM
R. James Amaro
SBN: 24036134
Matthew A. Elwell
SBN: 24082962
2500 E. TC Jester Blvd., Ste. 525
713.864.1941 (Tel.)
713.864.1942 (Fax)
fax@amarolawfirm.com
/s/ Randall L. Kallinen

KALLINEN LAW PLLC
Randall L. Kallinen
State Bar of Texas No. 00790995
511 Broadway Street
Telephone: 713.320.3785
FAX: 713.893.6737
E-mail: AttorneyKallinen@aol.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and exact copy of the foregoing Plaintiff’s
Second Amended Complaint was served on the day of , 2020 by causing this
document to be filed with the Court’s CM/ECF program which will provide notice to the following
parties and counsel:
Clay T. Grover
Jamie L. Houston
ROGERS, MORRIS & GLOVER, L.L.P.
5718 Westheimer, Suite 1200
Attorneys for Defendant
R. James Amaro

JS 44 (Rev. 0 /16) CIVIL COVER 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

Austin Independent School District, Austin Independent School District
Christina Villarreal and Leonard Barba, as Next Friends for Jane Doe, a Police Department Chief Eric Mendez and Austin Independent School
Minor District Police Department Detective Alex Phillips
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Travis County, Texas County of Residence of First Listed 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)
Chad W. Dunn, 4201 Cypress Creek Pkwy, Ste 530, Houston, TX 77068
Paul M. Guinn, 1515 S. Capital of Texas Hwy, Ste 204, Austin, TX 78746
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)
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 840 Trademark 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) 490 Cable/Sat TV
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 850 Securities/Commodities/
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal Relations 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 891 Agricultural Acts
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice 790 Other Labor Litigation 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 950 Constitutionality of
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions
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, 42 U.S.C. § 1988
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Hostile educational environment pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
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
05/02/2017 Chad W. Dunn
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 0 /16) Case 1:19-cv-00586-RP Document 30-1 Filed 04/29/20 Page 74 of 74
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.
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.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
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.
Exhibit 2
CLAY T. GROVER
Direct Dial: (713) 960-6033
5718 WESTHEIMER ROAD, SUITE 1200 cgrover@rmgllp.com
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77057
PHONE: (713) 960-6000 ▪ FAX: (713) 960-6025
www.rmgllp.com
April 17, 2020
Via E-mail
Matt Elwell
Amaro Law Firm
2500 E. TC Jester, Suite 525
matt@amarolawfirm.com
Re: C.A. No. 1:19-cv-00586; Crystal Ayon a/n/f M.R.A, a minor v. Austin ISD;
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin
Division.
Dear Matt:
As of March 13, 2020, Greg Abbott, the Governor of Texas, issued an order
temporarily closing all schools in the State of Texas, due to the ongoing global pandemic
created by the outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). See Executive Order No.
GA-08, attached as Exhibit A. AISD is a public school district and has, therefore, been
closed since the issuance of Governor Abbott’s Order.
Plaintiff’s served Defendant with Requests for Production and Requests for
Admissions on March 23, 2020, and Interrogatories on March 25, 2020. Responses are due
April 22, 2020 and April 24, 2020. However, due to the District being closed for the
foreseeable future and necessary employees being, therefore, unavailable, the Parties agree
to extend Defendant’s answer and objection deadline to May 18, 2020. This deadline may
need to be further extended if the administration does not return when currently expected.
Very truly yours,
Clay T. Grover
Austin Office: 5920 W. William Cannon Dr., Bldg. 1, Suite 250 Austin, Texas 78749 Phone: (512) 354-1050 Fax: (512) 354-1049
Anna McMullen
April 17, 2020

Page 2
AGREED:
___________________________
Matt Elwell
Attorney for Crystal Ayon a/n/f M.R.A

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DVISION
Plaintiff,

DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
ON THIS DAY CAME TO BE HEARD Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint and in the Alternative Motion for New Trial. Upon consideration of the
Motions, the responses thereto, and the arguments of Counsel, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave should be GRANTED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Petition is hereby GRANTED and said Second Amended Petition is hereby considered FILED
with the Court.
SIGNED on this day of , 2020
Hon. Robert Pitman, Judge Presiding
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED

PETITION AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL 1

Austin ISD Lawsuit

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Austin ISD Lawsuit

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 1:19-cv-00586-RP Document 30 Filed 04/29/20 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CRYSTAL AYON A/N/F M.R.A., A MINOR,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-cv-00586

AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE ROBERT L. PITMAN:

COMES NOW CRYSTAL AYON, A/N/F OF M.R.A., A MINOR, Plaintiff, and

respectfully show the Court the following:

1. Plaintiff is Crystal Ayon A/N/F M.R.A., a Minor; Defendant is Austin Independent

School District (“AISD”).

M.R.A’s repeated sexual assault by Defendant AISD’s employee, Cesar Maldonado.

4. This Court granted Defendant AISD’s 12(b)(6) Motion in part, dismissing

days after the entry of the Order.

II. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITY

A. The Court May Grant Leave for Plaintiff to Amend

sound discretion of the district court and

B. Alternatively, this Court May Grant a New Trial.

enacted a policy that did nothing to effectuate adequate protections.

Exhibit 1 and its attachment as if fully re-stated herein.

deprivation of M.R.A.’s constitutional rights. In response to Maldonado’s arrest, Fox7Austin

AISD’s deliberate indifference to protect its students completely.

AMARO LAW FIRM

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

KALLINEN LAW PLLC

/s/ Randall L. Kallinen_____

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CRYSTAL AYON A/N/F M.R.A., A MINOR,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-cv-00586

AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE ROBERT L. PITMAN:

this Honorable Court the following:

Maldonado (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Maldonado”), employed by Austin Independent

School District (hereinafter referred to as AISD”). Rogelia Lopez (hereinafter referred to as

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1

to the instant case.

4. This action seeks actual damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages,

actionable by 42 U.S.C. §1983 and by Title IX, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688.

Individual Defendant’s tortious conduct under state law.

6. Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues triable to a jury.

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 2

7. Plaintiff, CRYSTAL AYON, A/N/F OF M.R.A., A MINOR (“Plaintiff”), is an

8. Defendant, AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT (“Defendant AISD”),

counsel, and answered this lawsuit.

9. Defendant Cesar Maldonado (“Defendant Maldonado”), is currently incarcerated in

Michael Unit at 2664 FM 2054, Tennessee Colony, Texas 75886.

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 3

Lopez can be served at 10012 Anahuac Trail, Austin, Texas 78748.

11. Defendant Claudia Santamaria (“Defendant Santamaria”) is a resident of the State

Austin, Texas 78704.

Frontage Rd., Austin, Texas 78704.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 4

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. DEFENDANT MALDONADO’S SEXUAL ASSAULT OF M.R.A.

sexual assaults of M.R.A.

20. Defendant Santamaria was responsible as a representative of AISD and acting

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 5

Maldonado’s molestation of M.R.A. continued.

of duty, the molestation continued.

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 6

family room of the family’s residence.