Whittney Ford v. the University of Texas at Austin

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided August 25, 2025·No. 15-25-00123-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 15-25-00123-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/25/2025 7:25 PM NO. 15-25-00123-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK In the Fifteenth Court of Appeals FILED IN 15th COURT OF APPEALS Austin, Texas AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/25/2025 7:25:45 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk WHITTNEY FORD, APPELLANT,

v.

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN AND JIM DAVIS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, APPELLEES.

Interlocutory Appeal from the 261st Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-24-002171 The Honorable Maria Cantu Hexsel, Judge Presiding

WHITTNEY FORD’S AMENDED BRIEF

WHITTNEY FORD PRO SE 4151 WELLBORN ROAD, APT#1101A BRYAN, TEXAS 77801 (979) 264 – 4944 WJACKSONFORD@GMAIL.COM

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

The following is a list of the parties to the trial court’s interlocutory order

and the names and addresses of trial counsel:

Appellant: Whittney Ford, Pro Se 4151 Wellborn Road, Apt#1101A Bryan, Texas 77801 Cellular Phone: (979) 264-4944 wjacksonford@gmail.com

Appellees: The University of Texas at Austin The President of The University of Texas at Austin

Appellees’ trial counsel: Rachel L. Behrendt Texas Bar No. 24130871 Assistant Attorney General P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2548 Telephone: (512) 475-4112 Facsimile: (512) 320-0667 Rachel.Behrendt@oag.texas.gov

Zachary Rhines Texas Bar No. 24116957 Special Counsel Special Litigation Division Office of the Texas Attorney General P.O. Box 12548 (MC 009) Austin, Texas 78711-2548 Telephone: (512) 696-8186 Facsimile: (512) 457-4410 Zachary.Rhines@oag.texas.gov

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL .......................................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... iv Abbreviations and Record References .......................................................................1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE...................................................................................2 Statement Regarding Oral Argument .........................................................................4 Issues Presented .........................................................................................................4 Statement Of Facts .....................................................................................................7 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................14 ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................16 I. Standard of Review. .......................................................................................16 II. The trial court erred as a matter of law granting The University of Texas at Austin’s plea to the jurisdiction because the University never identified an exemption to disclosure concerning information request R005536-120223, and The University omitted necessary language, in its final brief to the Attorney General, to disobey the limit imposed by Tex Gov’t Code 552.104(a)................18 a. Because the University omitted necessary language in its final brief to the Office of attorney general, the University failed to ‘state’ an exception as required by Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.301(e)(1)(A) and thus refused to request an attorney general’s decision as provided by Subchapter G of the TPIA, activating the waiver of sovereign immunity under Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.321(a). ...........18 b. Conclusory assertions that a particular exception applies to R005536-120223 does not suffice. ....................................................................................................20

ii

c. The University of Texas at Austin never identified an exemption to the information at issue and subsequently never requested an attorney general’s decision. ................................................................................................................21 d. The University supplied inadmissible hearsay, which the trial court must have relied on to erroneously grant the University’s plea to the jurisdiction. .....22 e. Because there is no affirmative negation of jurisdiction, the trial court erred in granting the University’s plea...........................................................................23 f. Because the information at issue does not sustain Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.104(a), the University was never entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and the trial court did not apply the law correctly when it granted the plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment. ..................................................24 g. When governmental bodies such as The University of Texas at Austin ignore its duty to utilize all the express language of the Texas Public Information Act, denying requestors’ entitlement to complete information about the University, subject matter jurisdiction is anointed on Travis County District Courts. ...........25 III. The trial court erred as a matter of law granting the motion for summary judgment in favor of The University of Texas at Austin because the University failed procedural prerequisites. ............................................................................27 h. Neither The University nor its President provided proper notice for its no- evidence motion for summary judgment. .............................................................27 IV. I pled a viable mandamus action against The University of Texas at Austin based on the plain language of Tex. Gov’t Code Section 552.321(a). .................29 V. I pled a viable ultra vires action against the President of The University of Texas at Austin alleging he has a duty to make the information at issue available for inspection, and he failed that duty, violating my entitlement to access to complete information about The University of Texas at Austin and the actions of its President...........................................................................................................31 VI. The Declaration of Chandrasekhar Ramalinga Bhat is utterly incompetent corresponding with the rash lies Rachel Behrendt submitted at the July 15, 2025, hearing. .................................................................................................................36 VII. The final brief by University System is fraudulent. ......................................37

iii

VIII. The trial court synchronized her own abuses of discretion with the lies of Rachel Behrendt and the University to unlawfully grant the plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment. ..................................................38 IX. The only demonstration by the University were lies told at the plea hearing, and acceptance of the lies by the trial court judge who reinforced the University’s lies with some of her own. ....................................................................................43 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER ..............................................................................44 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................45 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................................45

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Texas Cases

Boone R. Enters. v. Fox. TV Stations Inc., 189 S.W.3d 795 ....................................19

Chambers-Liberty Counties Navigation Dist. v. State, 575 S.W.3d 339, 62 Tex.

Sup. J. 969 (Tex. 2019) .........................................................................................23

City of Georgetown v. Putnam 646 S.W.3d 61 ........................................................17

Empower Texans, Inc. v. Dallas Cnty., 648 S.W.3d 664, No. 05-20-00546-CV

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Whittney Ford v. the University of Texas at Austin, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Whittney Ford v. the University of Texas at Austin (Whittney Ford v. the University of Texas at Austin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ford v. City of Huntsville
242 F.3d 235 (Fifth Circuit, 2001)
Roviaro v. United States
353 U.S. 53 (Supreme Court, 1957)
Paul v. Davis
424 U.S. 693 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Whalen v. Roe
429 U.S. 589 (Supreme Court, 1977)
Micki Ann Ramie v. City of Hedwig Village, Texas
765 F.2d 490 (Fifth Circuit, 1985)
Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda
133 S.W.3d 217 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
City of Dallas v. Abbott
304 S.W.3d 380 (Texas Supreme Court, 2010)
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P.
343 S.W.3d 112 (Texas Supreme Court, 2011)
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Abbott
310 S.W.3d 670 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010)
City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News
22 S.W.3d 351 (Texas Supreme Court, 2000)
Simmons v. Kuzmich
166 S.W.3d 342 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
The Baytown Sun v. City of Mont Belvieu
145 S.W.3d 268 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
Envoy Medical Systems, L.L.C. v. State
108 S.W.3d 333 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
United States v. Amalgamated Life Insurance
534 F. Supp. 676 (S.D. New York, 1982)
Harrison v. Vance
34 S.W.3d 660 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
City of San Antonio v. Texas Attorney General
851 S.W.2d 946 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993)
National Tank Co. v. Brotherton
851 S.W.2d 193 (Texas Supreme Court, 1993)
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Cox Texas Newspapers, LP
287 S.W.3d 390 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009)