CAUSE NO.

J.J. KOCH, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff, §
§
v. §
§ ______ JUDICIAL COURT
CLAY JENKINS, §
in his official capacity, §
Defendant. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION,

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, and
APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

COMES NOW Plaintiff Justin "J.J." Koch, the Dallas County Commissioner

for District Two in Dallas County, to petition this Court concerning Defendant

Clay Jenkins and his unilateral decision to require face coverings in meetings of

the Dallas County Commissioners during its regular meeting held August 3, 2021,

irrespective of Gov. Abbott's Executive Order, EO-38, which specifically denies

any authority to Jenkins to make or enforce such rules.

Plaintiff Koch seeks a declaration that a unilateral creation and enforcement

of an imprecise face-covering rule by Jenkins is illegal, temporary restraint of the

enforcement of the mask-covering rule under GA-38 and the Texas Open Meetings

Act, and injunction relief toward the same. Plaintiff seeks the removal of Clay

Jenkins from his position based on incompetency and official misconduct under

section 87.013 of the Texas Local Government Code and section 24, art. V of the

Texas Constitution.

Koch v. Jenkins - Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 1

 I. DISCOVERY PLAN
1. Plaintiffs intend to conduct discovery under Level 3 of Rule 190.

II. RULE 47 STATEMENT OF RELIEF

2. The remedy sought herein is within the jurisdictional limits of the Court.

Plaintiff seeks monetary relief of $250,000 or less and non-monetary relief, and all

other relief to which he may show himself entitled.

III. PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Justin "J.J." Koch resides in Dallas County serving as Comm'r of

District Two of Dallas County, and can be reached through the undersigned.

4. Defendant Clay Jenkins is a resident of Dallas County and is the elected

Dallas County Judge in Dallas County, Texas. He can be served at 411 Elm St., 1st

Floor, Suite 127, Dallas, Texas 75202, or wherever he may be found.

IV. VENUE, JURISDICTION, WAIVER, AUTHORITIES

5. District courts have general supervisory control over commissioners courts,

with excepted by law. Tex. Const. Art. V, § 8; Tex. Gov't Code § 24.020.

6. Venue is proper in Dallas County as the suit arises out of the actions by

Defendant Jenkins in Dallas County.

7. Texas courts have interpreted Tex. Const. art. V, § 18 to mean that,

although a commissioners court may exercise broad discretion through implied

powers in conducting county business, the legal basis for any action taken must be

grounded ultimately in the Texas Constitution or statutes. Integrity Group, Inc. v.

Koch v. Jenkins - Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 2

Medina County Comm'rs Court, No. 04-03-00413-CV, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS

9186 (Tex. App. San Antonio Oct. 20, 2004), reh'g denied, No. 04-03-00413-CV,

2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 2799 (Tex. App. San Antonio Feb. 7, 2005).

8. This Court has jurisdiction because the Declaratory Judgment Act waives

governmental immunity regarding challenges to validity of government actions.

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 37.004, .006; Texas Lottery Comm. v. First State

Bank of DeQueen, 325 S.W.3d 628 (2010).

9. Based on the power given to him by the Disaster Act of 1975, Governor

Abbott issued Executive Order GA-38 on July 29, 2021, which has the effect of

law and prohibits any governmental entity, public health authority, and official

from requiring face coverings, other than in hospitals and jails. See Exhibit 2.

10. A direct equitable action must be filed in a district court in order to invoke

that court's jurisdiction to exercise supervisory control of the commissioners court.

In re El Paso Cty. Comm'rs Court, 281 S.W.3d 16, 19 (Tex. App. 2005).

11. By definition, the Texas Open Meetings Act waives the immunity of

government officials and government agencies. See Texas Gov't Code §§ 551.001,

et seq. "Every regular, special, or called meeting of a governmental body shall be

open to the public, except as provided by this chapter." § 551.002.

Koch v. Jenkins - Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 3

 V. FACTS
A. The County Judge of Dallas County is required to follow GA-38.

12. Commissioners courts are the principal governing body of a county. The

powers and duties of the commissioners courts include aspects of legislative,

executive, administrative, and judicial functions. In the exercise of its powers and

jurisdiction over county business, the commissioners court has implied authority to

exercise broad discretion to accomplish the purposes intended. In re El Paso Cty.

Comm'rs Court, 281 S.W.3d 16, 19 (Tex. App. 2005).

13. Defendant Clay Jenkins is the elected County Judge of Dallas County, which

is not a jail or hospital facility, and is therefore obligated to follow GA-38,

prohibits any governmental entity, public health authority, and official from

requiring face coverings, other than in hospitals and jails. See Exhibit 2.

14. In addition to Governor Abbott's executive order, no authority has acted in

any way to create a rule, or authority to require any person to wear face coverings.

15. Defendant has filed an affidavit stating his only judicial duties are

conducting hearings under Chapter 61 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code or

conducting marriages ceremonies. Thus, he has no claim to be a "judge" as the title

is used in every actual courtroom, and is typical for large counties. See Exhibit 3.

16. No disaster or medical emergency exists to support any unilateral rule-

making authority by Jenkins to remove a commissioner from a meeting.

Koch v. Jenkins - Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 4

B. Defendant Jenkins illegally removed J.J. Koch from Comm'rs Court.

17. On the morning of August 3, 2021, Plaintiff appeared in person to

participate in a regular meeting of the Dallas County Commissioners Court.

18. Jenkins unilaterally decided that all participants and individuals present

would be required to wear a face covering. The Commissioners did not vote on this

as a policy, and it was not on the agenda for the meeting.

19. When J.J. Koch opted against wearing a face covering, Jenkins ordered the

bailiff to remove Commissioner Koch. Koch left peacefully, escorted by the bailiff.

20. Based on Jenkins's actions, he was willing to employ actual violence to

ensure that Koch wore a face covering that has been shown to be less than 2%

effective to stop spread of a virus with a 99% survival rate after 100 days of use.1

1
See CDC-cited study, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm; Guy GP Jr., Lee FC,
Sunshine G, et al. Association of State-Issued Mask Mandates and Allowing On-Premises Restaurant
Dining with County-Level COVID-19 Case and Death Growth Rates — United States, March 1–
December 31, 2020; stating (parentheticals removed): “During March 1–December 31, 2020, state-issued
mask mandates applied in 2,313 (73.6%) of the 3,142 U.S. counties. Mask mandates were associated with
a 0.5 percentage point decrease in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and
decreases of 1.1, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively,
after implementation.... Daily case and death growth rates before implementation of mask mandates were
not statistically different from the reference period.”

Koch v. Jenkins - Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 5

 VI. APPLICABLE LEGAL AUTHORITIES
21. This Court may declare the rights and other legal relations of the parties in

dispute whether or not further relief is or could be sought.

22. This Court has jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief

against Clay Jenkins because the Declaratory Judgment Act waives governmental

immunity when the plaintiff is challenging the validity of an ordinance, order, or

government action. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 37.004, 37.006.

23. Pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 37.008 for a declaratory

judgment action to be proper: (1) there must be a real controversy between the

parties, and; (2) the controversy must be one that will actually be determined by

the judicial declaration sought. See Brooks v. Northglen Ass’n., 141 S.W.3d 158,

163–164 (Tex. 2004).

24. Additionally, private parties may seek declaratory relief against state

officials who act without authority and to compel state officers to act within their

capacity. Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 287 S.W.3d 240 (Tex. App. Austin 2009).

25. An interested person may bring an action by mandamus or injunction to

stop, prevent, or reverse violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act by members of

a governmental body. Tex. Gov’t Code, Sec. 551.142.

26. Generally, notice of an agenda requires 72 hours; even an emergency

addition must be provided a one-hour notice. Tex. Gov't Code § 551.045.

Koch v. Jenkins - Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 6

 VII. CLAIMS

SUMMARY: Defendant must be enjoined from violating Plaintiffs’

right to represent his constituents and Defendant must be further
enjoined to prevent violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act.
27. This Court may declare the rights and other legal relations of the parties in

dispute, whether further relief is or could be sought.

28. Based on the Texas Constitution and case law as cited above, Plaintiffs ask

the Court to issue a temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, and then a

permanent injunction after a full adjudication on the merits, preventing the

Defendants from making up rules and enforcing them as though they were laws, as

follows.

Claim 1 - County Judge Clay Jenkins’ rule requiring Plaintiff to wear a

mask violates GA-38 and is illegal and should be declared void.
29. As described above, County Judge Clay Jenkins ordered Plaintiff to wear a

mask and removed him upon Plaintiff’s refusal. GA-38 disallows any

governmental entity to require masks. County Judge Clay Jenkins as a

governmental entity required the Plaintiff to wear a mask. County Judge Clay

Jenkins is not obeying GA-38.

30. Plaintiffs seek a declaration under section 37.003(a) of the Texas Civil

Practice and Remedies Code, “A court of record within its jurisdiction has power

to declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or

Koch v. Jenkins - Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 7

could be claimed. An action or proceeding is not open to objection on the ground

that a declaratory judgment or decree is prayed for.”

31. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the County Judge Clay Jenkin’s

“Mask rule” violated Plaintiffs’ rights as found in the GA-38 and be found void.

Claim 2 - County Judge Clay Jenkins “Mask Rule” violates TOMA.

32. Meetings behind closed doors of government entities violate the Texas Open

Meetings Act, sec. 551.002 of the Texas Gov’t Code, which requires that “[e]very

regular, special, or called meeting of a governmental body shall be open to the

public…”.

33. The Texas Supreme Court has held that, “[t]he Open Meetings Act generally

provides that an action taken in violation of the Act is ‘voidable’…”, Town of

Shady Shores v. Swanson, No. 18-0413, 63 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 180, 2019 Tex. LEXIS

1213, at *19 (Dec. 13, 2019).

34. County Judge Clay Jenkins’s illegal Mask Rule violates TOMA as it

restricts the public and Plaintiff from attending Commissioner’s Court. The Mask

Rule is in violation of GA-38 which disallows government entities to require

masks. County Judge Clay Jenkins used his Mask Rule to remove the Plaintiff,

County Commissioner Koch, from Commissioner’s Court, violating TOMA by not

allowing the public into the meeting. The Mask Rule violates TOMA and is void.

Koch v. Jenkins - Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 8

 Claim 3 - Application for Writ of Temporary Restraining Order and
Temporary Injunction
35. The purpose of a TRO is to preserve the status quo, which the Supreme

Court has defined as "the last, actual, peaceable, non-contested status which

preceded the pending controversy." In re Newton, 146 S.W.3d 648, 651 (Tex.

2004) (cleaned up).

36. A TRO restrains a party from acting only during the pendency of motion for

temporary injunction, i.e., until a full evidentiary hearing on the motion occurs. Del

Valle ISD v. Lopez, 845 S.W.2d 808, 809 (Tex. 1992); see TEX. R. CIV. P. 680.82.

37. Plaintiff seeks a TRO based on the above until the Court can rule on a

temporary injunction lasting until the merits of the case can be adjudicated.

38. Defendant can show no harm in granting the relief requested. Defendant

violated the legal process and the Texas Constitution in creating law and enforcing

it without authority. Enjoining an already illegal action does not cause harm.

39. The harm to the Plaintiff, if such injunctive relief is denied, will be

significant and irreparable. Plaintiff faces the total loss of his employment duties

for no other reason than an arbitrary bureaucratic decree if the County Judge is

allowed to continue unchecked.

40. Plaintiff seeks that the Court temporarily enjoin County Judge Clay Jenkins,

restraining him, his agents, representatives, employees or anyone acting on their

behalf from taking any actions to enforce the Mask Rule or any iteration with the

Koch v. Jenkins - Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 9

same language against Plaintiff, including but not limited to requiring him to wear

a mask, or any iteration of these orders until such time as the Court makes a final

ruling on the matter.

41. Absent judicial intervention, Plaintiff faces ongoing requirements impacting

his operation and no practical ability to again prevent County Judge Clay Jenkins

from further penalizing Plaintiff and forcing him to wear a mask.

42. There is no adequate remedy at law that will give Plaintiff relief because

civil and criminal penalties, loss of income, and damaged business relationships

should be addressed immediately. Plaintiff's damages cannot be measured with

certainty, and it is neither equitable nor conscionable to allow Defendant to violate

Plaintiff's rights and prevent him from his duties in light of GA-38.

43. The comparative injury or balance of equities and hardships to the parties

and to the public interest support granting temporary injunctive relief because

Plaintiff is only asking the Court to preserve the status quo and require Defendant

to cease unlawfully infringing upon Plaintiffs’ duties without authority.

44. Because Plaintiff seeks a TRO, he must file a bond. Because the order is

sought against a government actor which will suffer no damage if granted,

Plaintiffs request bond be set at $10.

Koch v. Jenkins - Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 10

 Claim 4 - Clay Jenkins should be removed from his position according
to the Texas Local Gov't Code and the Texas Constitution.
45. By deliberately disobeying GA-38, County Judge Clay Jenkins has shown

his incompetency and demonstrated official misconduct by deliberately disobeying

an executive order that carries the force of law under the Disaster Act.

46. Sec. 24. Article V of the Texas Constitution allows for removal of county

officers, including county judges, by Judges of the District Courts for

incompetency and official misconduct upon finding of its truth by a jury.

47. Section 87.013 allows a county judge to be removed for incompetency and

official misconduct. Section 87.011 defines “incompetency” as “gross carelessness

in discharge of those duties” and defines “official misconduct” as “unlawful

behavior relating to official duties by an officer entrusted with the administration

of justice or the execution of the law.” The term includes an intentional or corrupt

failure, refusal, or neglect of officers to perform legal duties.

48. GA-38 specifically states that no government entity may require masks.

County Judge Clay Jenkins showed gross carelessness in his duties by illegally

requiring the plaintiff to wear a mask and removing him.

49. County Judge Clay Jenkins intentionally refused to obey GA-38 by requiring

Plaintiff to wear a mask.

50. Clay Jenkins should be removed by a jury as county judge under Section

87.013 of the Loc. Govt. Code and Section 24, art. V of the Texas Constitution.

Koch v. Jenkins - Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 11

 VIII. ATTORNEY’S FEES
51. Plaintiff seek an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees as authorized by the

Texas Declaratory Judgment Act and the Texas Open Meetings Act.

IX. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

52. Plaintiff has satisfied all conditions precedent to bring this suit.

X. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

53. Plaintiff demands trial by jury; trial by jury is also required by Section

section 87.013 of the Texas Local Government Code.

XI. EVIDENCE PROVIDED

54. Plaintiff has affixed his declaration, a copy of GA-38, and meeting minutes

showing Defendant's waiver of judicial powers, incorporated by reference.

XII. PRAYER
55. Plaintiffs pray that the Defendant be cited to appear and answer, and

Plaintiff granted all relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled in law and equity,

including but not limited to:

a. a temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, and permanent

injunction prohibiting Defendant from enforcing a mask requirement;

b. a declaration that Defendant's mask-covering rule is void as an illegal

violation of GA-38;

c. removal of Clay Jenkins from his position as County Judge;

d. reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees, costs, and interest as allowed; and

e. costs of court.

Koch v. Jenkins - Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 12

 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Warren V. Norred

Warren V. Norred,
Texas Bar No. 24045094, wnorred@norredlaw.com
515 E. Border St., Arlington, Texas 76010
Tel. (817) 704-3984, Fax. (817) 524-6686
Attorney for Plaintiff

Appendix:
Exhibit 1— Declaration of JJ Koch
Exhibit 2— Governor Abbott’s Executive Order GA-38
Exhibit 3— Briefing Court Order
Exhibit 4 - Proposed TRO
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE – This document will be served formally to the
Defendant in due course, but is being sent to him via email as it is filed.

s/Warren V. Norred/

Koch v. Jenkins - Plaintiff's Original Petition Page 13

 EXHIBIT 1

Declaration of J.J. Koch

My name is Justin Jay ".1..1." Koch ; my date of birth is .June 13 , 1979; my contact address is 411
Elm St., 2nd Floor Dall as, Texas 75202. I declare und er penalty of pelj ury that the following
statements are true and correct.

I . I am the Dall as County Co mmi ss ioner for Di strict Two in Dall as County, Texas.

2. r appeared in person at 9 a. m. thi s morn ing to represent

Di strict Two at a regu lar meeting of
the Dallas County Commi ss ioners in a public room at 4 1 I Elm Street, Dallas, TX 75202.

3. Clay Jenkins ordered my removal from the room , claiming he had the power to remove me
because r was not wearing a face covering, and threatened me with contempt.

4. Clay Jenkin s made the cl aim that hi s position as "co unty judge" gives him the authority to
make and enforce a requirement to wear a face covering.

5. I was req uired to leave the room to avoid phys ica l removal by the bailiff serving Jenkins.

6. At about II :30 a. m., I informed Jenkins that he was violating Governor A bbott's GA-38
Executive Order, whi ch inc ludes a paragraph 4.a that states, "No governmental entity,
including a county, city, school di strict, and public heal th autho rity, and no governmental
official may require any person to wear a face cove ring or to mandate that another person
wear a face covering [exce pt for cond iti ons invo lving hospital s and jai ls]. "

7. Further, paragraph 4.b of Gov. Abbott's GA -38 specifi call y eliminates any abi lity for a local
government official to enforce a face-covering rul e, stat ing, 'Thi s paragraph 4 sha ll
supersede an y fa ce-coveri ng requirement imposed by any loca l governmental entity or
officia l, except as expli citl y provided in subparagrap h number 4.a."

8. Though I am able to speak during the meeti ng of the com mi ssioners, J am unable to vote on
matters before the Comm iss ioners Court without being physically present, leaving the voters
of Di strict Two wi thout representation.

9. No vote of the Da llas County Commissioners Co urt was taken re ga the action to require
face coverings in the Comm issioners Co urt and no emergency was declared in connection
with the action to req uire tace cove rings in the Co mmi ss ioners Court.

Executed in Dallas Co unty, Texas on August 3, 202 1,

Declaration of1.1. Koch Page 1

 GOVERNOR GREG ABBOTT

July 29. 2021

FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE
SECRETARY OF STATE
2’. Lse-’CLOCk
92021
Mr. Joe A. Esparza
Deputy Secretary of’ State
State Capitol Room IE.8
Austin, Texas 78701

Dear Deputy Secretary Esparza:

Pursuant to his powers as Governor of the State of Texas. Greg Abbott has issued the following:

Executive Order No. GA-38 relating to the continued response to the COVJD-19
disaster.

The original executive order is attached to this letter of transmittal.

Respectfully submitted.

/Execjve Clelk to the Governor

Attachment

POST OFFICE Box 12428 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 512463-2000 (VoIcE) DIAL 7-1-1 FOR RELAY SERVICES
 !xnufhur lilhber
BY THE
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

Executive Department
Austin, Texas
July 29, 2021

EXECUTIVE ORDER
GA3S

Relating to the continued response to the COVID-19 disaster.

WHEREAS. I, Greg Abbott. Governor of Texas. issued a disaster proclamation on March

13, 2020. certifying under Section 418.014 of the Texas Government Code that the
novel coronavirus (COVID-19) poses an imminent threat of disaster for all Texas
counties; and

WHEREAS, in each subsequent month effective through today, I have renewed the
COVID-19 disaster declaration for all Texas counties; and

WHEREAS, from March 2020 through May 2021, 1 issued a series of executive orders
aimed at protecting the health and safety of Texans, ensuring uniformity throughout
Texas, and achieving the least restrictive means of combatting the evolving threat to
public health by adjusting social-distancing and other mitigation strategies; and

WHEREAS, combining into one executive order the requirements of several existing
COVID-19 executive orders will further promote statewidc uniformity and certainty;
and

WHEREAS, as the COVID-19 pandemic continues, Texans are strongly encouraged as a

matter of personal responsibility to consistently follow good hygiene, social-distancing.
and other mitigation practices: and

WHEREAS, receiving a COVID-19 vaccine under an emergency use authorization is

always voluntary in Texas and will never be mandated by the government. hut it is
strongly encouraged for those eligible to receive one: and

WHEREAS, state and local officials should continue to use every reasonable means to
make the COVID-19 vaccine available for any eligible person who chooses to receive
one; and

WHEREAS, in the Texas Disaster Act of 1975. the legislature charged the governor with
the responsibility “for meeting ...the dangers to the state and people presented by
disasters” under Section 418.011 of the Texas Government Code, and expressly granted
the governor broad authority to fulfill that responsibility; and

WHEREAS, under Section 418.012, the “governor may issue executive orders
hav[ing] the force and effect of law;” and

WHEREAS, under Section 418.016(a), the “governor may suspend the provisions of any
regulatory statute prescribing the procedures for conduct of state business ... if strict
compliance with the provisions . would in any way prevent, hinder,
-. or delay necessary
action in coping with a disaster:” and

WHEREAS, under Section 4 18.018(c), the “governor may control ingress and egress to
FILED IN THE OFF!CE OF THE
SECRETARY OF STATE
3i5i”- O’CLOCK
JUL 292021
Governor Greg Abbott Executive Order GA-38
July 29. 2021 Page 2

and from a disaster area and the movement of persons and the occupancy of premises in
the area;” and

WHEREAS, under Section 418.173, the legislature authorized as “an offense,”

punishable by a fine up to $1,000, any “failure to comply with the [state emergency
management plan] or with a rule, order, or ordinance adopted under the plan:”

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas, by virtue of the power and
authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas, do hereby order
the following on a statewide basis effective immediately:

I. To ensure the continued availability of timely information about COVID- 19 testing

and hospital bed capacity that is crucial to efforts to cope with the COVID- 19
disaster, the following requirements apply:

a, All hospitals licensed under Chapter 241 of the Texas Health and
Safety Code. and all Texas state-run hospitals. except for psychiatric
hospitals. shall submit to the Texas Department of State Health
Services (DSHS) daily reports of hospital bed capacity. in the manner
prescribed by DSHS. DSHS shall promptly share this information
with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
h. Every public or private entity that is utilizing an FDA-approved test,
including an emergency use authorization test. for human diagnostic
purposes of COVID-l9, shall submit to DSHS. as well as to the local
health department. daily reports of all test results, both positive and
negative. DSHS shall promptly share this information with the CDC.

2. To ensure that vaccines continue to be voluntary for all Texans and that Texans’
private COVID-19-rclated health information continues to enjoy protection against
compelled disclosure, in addition to new laws enacted by the legislature against so-
called “vaccine passports,” the following requirements apply:

a. No governmental entity can compel any individual to receive a

COVID-19 vaccine administered under an emergency use
authorization. I hereby suspend Section 81.082(fl(1) of the Texas
Health and Safety Code to the extent necessary to ensure that no
governmental entity can compel any individual to receive a COVID-19
vaccine administered under an emergency use authorization.
h. State agencies and political subdivisions shall not adopt or enforce any
order, ordinance, policy, regulation. rule, or similar measure that
requires an individual to provide, as a condition of receiving any
service or entering any place, documentation regarding the
individual’s vaccination status for any COVJD-l9 vaccine
administered under an emergency use authorization. I hereby suspend
Section 81.085(i) of the Texas Health and Safety’ Code to the extent
necessary to enforce this prohibition. This paragraph does not apply to
any documentation requirements necessary for the administration of a
COVID— 19 vaccine.
c. Any public or private entity that is receiving or will receive public
funds through any means, including grants, contracts, loans, or other
disbursements of taxpayer money, shall not require a consumer to
provide, as a condition of receiving any service or entering any place.
documentation regarding the consumer’s vaccination status for any
COVID-19 vaccine administered under an emergency use
authorization. No consumer may be denied entry to a facility financed
FILED IN THE OFFtE OF THE
SECRETARY OF STATE
:xO’CLOCK

JUL 292021
Governor Greg Abbott Executive Order GA-38
July 29, 2021 Page 3

in whole or in part by public funds for failure to provide

documentation regarding the consumer’s vaccination status for any
COVTD-19 vaccine administered under an emergency use
authorization.
d. Nothing in this executive order shall be construed to limit the ability of
a nursing home, state supported living center, assisted living facility,
or long-term care facility to require documentation of a resident’s
vaccination status for any COVTD-19 vaccine.
e. This paragraph number 2 shall supersede any conflicting order issued
by local officials in response to the COVID-19 disaster. I hereby
suspend Sections 418.1015(h) and 418.108 of the Texas Government
Code, Chapter 81, Subchapter E of the Texas Health and Safety Code,
and any other relevant statutes, to the extent necessary to ensure that
local officials do not impose restrictions in response to the COVID-19
disaster that are inconsistent with this executive order.

3. To ensure the ability of Texans to preserve livelihoods whilc protecting lives, the
following requirements apply:

a. There are no COVID-19-related operating limits for any business or

other establishment.
b. In areas where the COVID-19 transmission rate is high, individuals are
encouraged to follow the safe practices they have already mastered,
such as wearing face coverings over the nose and mouth wherever it is
not feasible to maintain six feet of social distancing from another
person not in the same household, but no peison may he required by
any jurisdiction to wear or to mandate the wearing of a face covering.
c. In providing or obtaining services, every person (including individuals,
businesses, and other legal entities) is strongly encouraged to use
good-faith efforts and available resources to follow the Texas
Department of State Health Services (DSHS) health recommendations,
found at www.dshs.texas.gov/coronavirus.
d. Nursing homes, state supported living centers, assisted living facilities,
and long-term care facilities should follow guidance from the Texas
Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) regarding
visitations, and should follow infection control policies and practices
set forth by HHSC, including minimizing the movement of staff
between facilities whenever possible.
e. Public schools may opcrate as provided by, and under the minimum
standard health protocols found in, guidance issued by the Texas
Education Agency. Private schools and institutions of higher
education are encouraged to establish similar standards.
f. County and municipal jails should follow guidance from the Texas
Commission on Jail Standards regarding visitations.
g. As stated above, business activities and legal proceedings are free to
proceed without COVID-19-related limitations imposed by local
governmental entities or officials. This paragraph number 3
supersedes any conflicting local order in rcsponse to the COVID-19
disaster, and all relevant laws are suspended to the extent necessary to
preclude any such inconsistent local orders. Pursuant to the
legislature’s command in Section 418.173 of the Texas Government
Code and the State’s emergency management plan, the imposition of
any conflicting or inconsistent limitation by a local governmental
entity or official constitutes a “failure to comply with” this executive
order that is subject to a fine up to $1,000.
FILED IN THE OFF1CE OF THE
SECRETARY OF STATE
jSO’CLOCK

JUL 292021
Governor Greg Abbott Executive Order GA-38
Ju1y29,2021 Page4

4. To further ensure that no governmental entity can mandate masks, the following
requirements shall continue to apply:

a. No governmental entity, including a county, city, school district, and

public health authority, and no governmental official may require any
person to wear a face covering or to mandate that another person wear
a face covering; provided, however, that:
state supported living centers, government-owned hospitals, and
i.
government-operated hospitals may continue to use appropriate
policies regarding the wearing of face coverings; and
ii. the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the Texas Juvenile
Justice Department, and any county and municipal jails acting
consistent with guidance by the Texas Commission on Jail
Standards may continue to use appropriate policies regarding the
wearing of face coverings.
b. This paragraph number 4 shall supersede any face-covering
requirement imposed by any local governmental entity or official,
except as explicitly provided in subparagraph number 4.a. To the
extent necessary to ensure that local governmental entities or officials
do not impose any such face-covering requirements, I hereby suspend
the following:

i. Sections 418.1015(b) and 418.108 of the Texas Government

Code;
ii. Chapter 81, Subchapter E of the Texas Health and Safety
Code;
iii. Chapters 121, 122, and 341 of the Texas Health and Safety
Code;
iv. Chapter 54 of the Texas Local Government Code; and
v. Any other statute invoked by any local governmental entity or
official in support of a face-covering requirement.

Pursuant to the legislature’s command in Section 4 18.173 of the Texas

Government Code and the State’s emergency management plan, the
imposition of any such face-covering requirement by a local
governmental entity or official constitutes a “failure to comply with”
this executive order that is subject to a fine up to $1,000.
c. Even though face coverings cannot be mandated by any governmental
entity, that does not prevent individuals from wearing one if they
choose.

5. To further ensure uniformity statewide:

a. This executive order shall supersede any conflicting order issued by

local officials in response to the COVTD-19 disaster, but only to the
extent that such a local order restricts services allowed by this
executive order or allows gatherings restricted by this executive order.
Pursuant to Section 4 18.016(a) of the Texas Government Code, I
hereby suspend Sections 418.1015(b) and 418.108 of the Texas
Government Code, Chapter 81, Subchapter E of the Texas Health and
Safety Code, and any other relevant statutes, to the extent necessary to
ensure that local officials do not impose restrictions in response to the
FILED (N THE OFFICE CF THE
SECRETARY OF STATE
35g O’CLOCK
JUL 292021
 ___________O’CLOCK

Governor Greg Abbott Executive Order GA-38

July 29, 2021 Page 5

COVTD-19 disaster that are inconsistent with this executive order,

provided that local officials may enforce this executive order as well
as local restrictions that are consistent with this executive order.
b. Confinement in jail is not an available penalty for violating this
executive order. To the extent any order issued by local officials in
response to the COVID-19 disaster would allow confinement in jail as
an available penalty for violating a COVID-19-related order, that order
allowing confinement in jail is superseded, and I hereby suspend all
relevant laws to the extent necessary to ensure that local officials do
not confine people in jail for violating any executive order or local
order issued in response to the COVID-l9 disaster.

This executive order supersedes all pre-existing COVID-19-related executive orders and
rescinds them in their entirety, except that it does not supersede or rescind Executive Orders
GA-13 or GA-37. This executive order shall remain in effect and in full force unless it is
modified, amended, rescinded, or superseded by the governor. This executive order may
also be amended by proclamation of the governor.

Given under my hand this the 29th

day of July, 2021.

GREG ABBOTT
Governor

ATTESTED BY:

Deputy ecretary of State

FILED IN THE OFFCE OP THE

SECRETARY OF STATE

JUL 292021
 Exhibit 3
Dallas County ☐ Resolution
☐ Solicitation/Contract
BRIEFING / COURT ORDER ☐ Executive Session
Commissioners Court - Sep 01 2020 ☐ Addendum

Continuing Education Requirements for County Judge Clay Lewis Jenkins

Briefing Date: Sep 1 2020

Funding Source:
Originating Department:
Prepared by:
Recommended by:
Comm Court Administration
Charles Reed, Assistant County Administrator for Governmental
Affairs
Charles Reed, Assistant County Administrator for Governmental
Affairs

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Section 81.002 of the Local Government Code requires County Judges and Commissioners complete
at least sixteen classroom hours of continuing education in the performance of the duties of county
commissioners at least once in each twelve-month period.

OPERATIONAL IMPACT:
County Judge Clay Lewis Jenkins has completed the requirement as attested by the attached
transcript for calendar year 2020.

ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE:

This is in compliance with the Dallas County Administrative Plan as it promotes a model
governmental entity by ensuring that members of the Dallas County Commissioners Court complete
continuing education related to the performance of their respective duties

RECOMMENDATION:
File the attached continuing education transcript for County Judge Clay Lewis Jenkins for the
calendar year 2020.

MOTION:
On a motion made by TBD, and seconded by TBD, the following order will be voted on
by the Commissioners Court of Dallas County, State of Texas:

Be it resolved and ordered that the Dallas County Commissioners Court does hereby
file the attached continuing education transcript for County Judge Clay Lewis Jenkins
for the calendar year 2020.

ATTACHMENTS:
Transcript_Jenkins
 JUDICIAL EDUCATION RECORD
Fiscal Year Reporting Period
9/1/2019 - 8/31/2020
Hon. Clay Jenkins
Judge Id: 232051
Dallas County Term: 01/01/2011 - 12/31/2022
411 Elm St
Dallas, TX 75202-3301
Phone: (214) 653-7949
Fax:

Date Description Earned Hours

09/01/2019 Exempt for FY20 16.00

You have met your education requirements for this reporting period.

Judicial Education Requirements

Experienced judges are required to obtain 16.0 hours of approved judicial education for each fiscal
year reporting period.

If you are EXEMPT, please disregard the above education requirement.

According to the Court of Criminal Appeals Rules of Judicial Education Rule 2 e:
A constitutional county judge is ³exempt from the continuing judicial education requirement for any
fiscal year for which the judge files an affidavit with the Registrar stating that the judge¶s only judicial
duties are conducting hearings under Chapter 61 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code or conducting
marriages ceremonies.´

Judges claiming this exemption must submit an affidavit claiming exemption each reporting
period to the Texas Association of Counties.

Judicial Education Questions

If you have questions pertaining to your judicial education records, please call the Judicial Hotline at
(844) CoJudge or (844) 265-8343.

Print Date: 8/10/2020

 Exh. 4

CAUSE NO.

J.J. KOCH, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff, §
§
v. §
§ ______ JUDICIAL COURT
CLAY JENKINS, §
in his individual and official capacity, §
Defendant. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

This matter was heard upon Plaintiff J.J. Koch's application for temporary restraining

order, ex parte. Based on Plaintiff's Original Petition and evidence attached, the Court GRANTS

the application as follows:

The Court FINDS that the current face-covering rule as described by Plaintiff

implemented and enforced by Defendant County Judge Clay Jenkins was made without authority

and actually an illegal act under Gov. Abbott's Executive Order GA-38.

The Court further FINDS that the face-covering rule is an apparent violation of the Texas

Open Meetings Act, which provides for injunctive relief to stop decisions made without proper

deliberation or authority, as the face-covering rule constitutes a policy decision made without a

vote or notice on any agenda.

The Court FINDS that, unless enjoined, Plaintiff faces irreparable harm, including

significant and irreparable damage to his right to represent his constituents and participate in

public discussion, which Gov. Abbott's Executive Order GA-38 specifically seeks to protect.

Additionally, the Court FINDS immediate injunctive intervention is appropriate to

prevent further harm and preserve the status quo before the Court can hear and consider the

Plaintiff’s application for a temporary injunction.

Koch v. Jenkins - Temporary Restraining Order Page 1
 NOW, THEREFORE, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the application, and

ORDERS Defendant Clay Jenkins (“Defendant”) and all his representatives and agents to cease

and desist enforcement actions of the Jenkins face-covering rule for fourteen (14) days pending a

full evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction, as follows:

Defendant shall not deny Plaintiff’s in-person participation or appearance in any meeting
of County Commissioners, whether a general meeting, a special meeting, a committee or
in any other activity.
This temporary restraining order is granted on the condition that an undertaking, executed

by the plaintiff and an appropriate surety in the sum of $10.00 be filed to make good such

damages as may be occasioned by the Defendant, not to exceed said sums as may be suffered by

a Defendant who is found to be wrongfully restrained.

Filing of the bond herewith required is noted by this court as having occurred by the time

of issuance of this order on the same day.

The Plaintiff’s motion on the application for a preliminary injunction is hereby set to be

heard before the Court at ____________, on _______ at _________ o’clock. This temporary

restraining order shall continue in force for fourteen (14) days from the date it takes effect.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial on the action on the merits will advanced and

consolidated with the hearing on the application for preliminary injunction.

Dated: _________________ ______________________

Judge Presiding

Koch v. Jenkins - Temporary Restraining Order Page 2