Senko, Et Al v. City of Austin, Et Al - Original Petition

CAUSE NO.
__________
HANNA SENKO, AMANDA DAY, §

WHITLEY DEGOLLADO, and § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
JESSICA RAGSDILL, §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. § ______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
CITY OF AUSTIN, TRAVIS COUNTY §
DISTRICT ATTORNEY MARGARET §
MOORE, FORMER TRAVIS COUNTY §
DISTRICT ATTORNEY ROSEMARY §
LEHMBERG, AUSTIN POLICE CHIEF §
BRIAN MANLEY, FORMER AUSTIN §
POLICE CHIEF ART ACEVEDO, and §
TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS, §
§
Defendants. § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
Plaintiffs Hanna Senko, Amanda Day, Whitley Degollado, and Jessica Ragsdill
(collectively the “Named Plaintiffs”), who on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated (the “Class”), and pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42, bring this Original
Class Action Petition against the City of Austin, Travis County District Attorney Margaret
Moore, former Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg, Austin Police Chief Brian
Manley, former Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo, and Travis County, Texas (collectively,
“Defendants”) and respectfully state the following:
I. INTRODUCTION
At its core, this case asks whether the Austin Police Department (“APD”) and Travis
County District Attorney’s Office (“DA’s Office”) can systematically refuse to investigate sex
crimes against women based on biased assumptions about their gender. The answer to that
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION PETITION – PAGE 1

9936648.5
question under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution is unambiguously no. Yet, for years female victims of sexual assault in Austin have
been disbelieved, dismissed, and denigrated by the APD and DA’s Office.
Women in Austin and Travis County have been re-traumatized by the law enforcement
system at nearly every turn—from taking years to test rape kits to coercing women to undergo
invasive exams when the detectives assigned know that evidence will almost certainly not be
used in a prosecution; from officers and DAs suggesting that survivors are lying about their
assaults to never informing victims that their cases have been closed; from a wall at the APD
ridiculing women who they believed made false rape claims to refusing to provide victims with
access to their own police reports and case files. It is impossible to distill the allegations and
experiences detailed herein into a succinct and singular premise, but the experiences survivors
have had with the APD and DA’s Office are universal in the sense that they received little
support and no justice at all from government officials sworn to protect them and the public. The
result is stark—while nearly 1,000 sexual assaults are reported in Austin each year (and
statistically, only about 10% of survivors report), only a handful (<25 each year) result in any
completed investigation, prosecution or jail time whatsoever. As a result, for years, female
victims of sexual assault in Austin and Travis County have been denied equal access to justice
and equal protection of the law.
Women who survive sexual assault in Travis County therefore endure multiple traumas;
first, the criminal assault itself; second, an investigation—assuming one even occurs—that puts
the victims under a microscope and subjects them to invasive physical exams with little to no
urgency for justice; and finally, the additional trauma of watching their cases and hopes for
justice languish and ultimately vanish, due to the inaction and refusal to act by the law

9936648.5
enforcement personnel charged with obtaining justice for them. As the Austin Police
Association put it in an official social media post from September 5, 2020:
There are only 19 sex crimes detectives at APD.
That number alone means there are only enough detectives to fully
investigate and process half of Austin’s reported sexual assault cases.
That number assumes detectives never take a day off from work for
vacation, family needs, or ongoing training to improve their skills.
That number completely ignores the thousands of other sexually-

motivated crimes that occur in Austin every year that those same 19
detectives are expected to solve. In reality, those 19 detectives only have
about one or two business days to solve each case, woefully short of the
time needed, leaving countless survivors without justice. It is no wonder
why so few survivors of sex crimes in Austin ever get their day in court.
That number completely ignores those thousands of backlogged forensic

exam kits. Do you know how [sic] detectives out of those 19 are assigned
to the cases coming from those kits?
Four.
Fisteen [sic] detectives work new cases, leaving 4 to work cold cases
coming from the backlogged kits. It doesn’t take a study to see the math
problem here.
This isn't a new issue, it’s an issue that has been plaguing the community
since any of us can remember. Our detectives are tired of telling
survivors, “I’m trying to get to your case as fast as I can.” The real
solution has always been the same, adequate staffing, and now is the time
to fix it.1
A similar lawsuit filed in 2018 by eight other Survivor/Plaintiffs (the “Federal
Lawsuit”) is currently on appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.2 The federal district court
judge in that case ultimately dismissed it based largely on his view that the federal judiciary
1
Facebook post dated September 5, 2020 on the official page of the Austin Police Association,
tagging with it Austin City Hall, which is the official Facebook page for the City of Austin.
2
Smith, et. al. v. City of Austin, et. al., Cause No. 20-50197, pending in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Appeal from the United States District Court, Western District
of Texas (Austin Division).

9936648.5
should abstain from hearing serious questions of state policy, positing that the Federal Lawsuit
Plaintiffs had an adequate option to be heard in state court.
As described in more detail below, Defendants’ (a) actions, (b) patterns of behavior, (c)
history of decision-making, and (d) departures from normal procedures in the treatment of
female victims of sexual assault, demonstrate ongoing, intentional discrimination against the
Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class on the basis of their gender. Specifically,
Defendants have committed constitutional violations by implementing, promoting, or
maintaining policies, practices, and/or customs that:
a. Refuse to implement and/or ignore proper training and supervision of government

employees handling the investigation of sexual assault cases;
b. Allocate significantly more resources to other violent crimes than to sexual

assaults against female victims;
c. Fail to submit and/or timely test Sexual Assault Kits (“SAKs”) and/or submit the
results to CODIS;
d. Prioritize the submission or testing of DNA evidence from other violent crimes
over SAKs;
e. Purposely and/or knowingly use or contract with labs that do not have the
capacity to timely and accurately test and/or analyze SAKs;
f. Purposely and/or knowingly use labs with known contamination and competency
problems for the testing and/or analyzing of SAKs;
g. Ignore or refuse to use SAK results to investigate or prevent additional rapes and
sexual assaults;
h. Knowingly omit from communications with victims of sexual assault that it is

unlikely their SAK will be timely tested and that an investigation will not be
completed in the absence of those results;
i. Fail to arrest known perpetrators of sexual assault against female victims;
j. Disproportionately refuse to investigate or proceed with sexual assault cases when

the victim is female;

9936648.5
k. Traumatize female victims of sexual assault in the course of their interactions
with Defendants by, among other things, refusing to treat their testimony as
adequate evidence regarding lack of consent;
l. Traumatize female victims of sexual assault in the course of their interactions

with Defendants by, among other things, refusing to treat their physical and/or
emotional injuries as adequate evidence corroborating lack of consent;
m. Over-emphasize or focus on unfounded professed concerns about lack of DNA or

credibility, when such concerns are not applied to: (i) other violent crimes, like
robbery, non-sexual assault, and homicide; or (ii) sexual assaults committed
against male victims;
n. Intentionally and/or knowingly subject women to invasive collection of bodily

tissues and/or DNA with actual or constructive knowledge that such evidence will
not be used to investigate or arrest their attackers;
o. Subject female victims and other women to future assaults by known perpetrators
by failing to act on, investigate, or prosecute prior sexual assaults against women;
p. Disproportionately refuse to investigate, process, or prosecute cases involving

sexual assault against female victims without DNA evidence;
q. Disproportionately refuse to investigate, process, or prosecute cases involving

sexual assault against female victims without physical injuries;
r. Treat sexual assault cases involving female victims with less urgency and
importance than is afforded to other types of violent crimes;
s. Inadequately staff, train, or supervise the investigation, processing, and

prosecution of sexual assault cases involving female victims; and
t. Treat female victims of sexual assault with less respect and devote less attention
to their cases than to cases involving male victims, as applied to both sexual
assaults and other violent crimes (collectively referred to herein as the
“Policies”).3
Defendants’ unconstitutional and discriminatory conduct subjects female victims of sexual
assault in Travis County and all women of Travis County to continued risk at the hands of
perpetrators who are never held accountable. Accordingly, Plaintiffs now bring this action
3
The Policies are not the only discriminatory customs, policies, and practices implemented by
the Defendants, but are an example of how gender discrimination pervades their cultures,
procedures, and systems.

9936648.5
seeking damages for violations of civil rights under color of law; injunctive relief requiring
Defendants to change the methods, policies, customs, and practices used to investigate sexual
assault; a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ methods, policies, customs, and practices violate state
law; and an award of damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.
II. DISCOVERY PLAN
1. The Named Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class, intend to seek entry
of a Level 3 order requiring a discovery control plan tailored to the specific circumstances of this
action under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.4.
III. PARTIES
2. Named Plaintiff (and Putative Class Representative) Hanna Senko is an adult
female resident of Texas, and may be served with pleadings and process in this proceeding
through the undersigned counsel.
3. Named Plaintiff (and Putative Class Representative) Amanda Day is an adult
4. Named Plaintiff (and Putative Class Representative) Whitley Degollado is an
adult female resident of Texas, and may be served with pleadings and process in this proceeding
5. Named Plaintiff (and Putative Class Representative) Jessica Ragsdill is an adult
6. Defendant City of Austin is a municipal entity located in Travis County, Texas,
and is recognized by the State of Texas as a properly organized and legal municipal entity.

9936648.5
Defendant City of Austin operates and is responsible for all the actions of the Austin Police
Department, the Current and Former Chiefs of the APD, and the Austin Police Department
Forensic Science Division’s DNA Section (“APD DNA Lab”). The City may be served through
the City Clerk at Austin City Hall, 301 W. Second Street, Austin, Texas 78701.
7. Defendant Travis County District Attorney Margaret Moore (the “DA” or “DA
Moore”) may be served at the Travis County District Attorney’s Office, 509 West 11 th Street,
Suite 1.700, Austin, Texas 78701.
8. Defendant former Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg (the
“Former DA” or “DA Lehmberg”) may be served at 2606 Deerfoot Trail, Austin, Texas
78704.
9. Defendant Austin Police Chief Brian Manley (the “Police Chief” or “Chief
Manley”) may be served at 715 East 8th Street, Austin, Texas 78701.
10. Defendant former Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo (the “Former Police Chief”
or “Chief Acevedo”) may be served at 1200 Travis Street, Houston, Texas 77002.
11. Defendant Travis County is a political subdivision of the State of Texas, and is
responsible for the actions of the Travis County District Attorney and her staff. Defendant
Travis County can be served through Judge Sam Biscoe, 700 Lavaca Street, Suite 2.300, Austin,
Texas 78701.
12. Named Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of all women who have been
subjected to sexual assault in Travis County, Texas, reported their assault, and were adversely
affected by the Defendants’ Policies (collectively, the “Class” and each a “Class Member”).
IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9936648.5
13. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to art. 5 §§ 1 and 8 of the Texas
Constitution and Texas Government Code §§ 24.007 and 24.008.
14. Venue is proper in Travis County pursuant to Section 15.002(a) and Section
15.005 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because all or a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in Travis County.
15. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1988, the Texas
Constitution, and Chapter 37 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code.
V. FACTS OF THE CASE
A. Each of the Named Plaintiffs was Personally Subjected to Unconstitutional,

Discriminatory, and Unfair Treatment by Defendants.
(1) Named Plaintiff Hanna Senko
16. On December 9, 2006, Named Plaintiff Hanna Senko embarked upon what she
thought was a casual date with a man she had known for over a year. That date would end with
her scared, confused, and with the realization that she had been date-raped.
17. Ms. Senko had previously been on one date with the man prior to December 9,
which had occurred several months earlier. That first date had taken place at the man’s house
where he made dinner. After dinner, the man invited Ms. Senko to spend the night, which she
declined. In response, the man became very upset, suggesting that he would not have gone to the
trouble of making dinner or having the date if she was not willing to spend the night with him.
Ms. Senko left his home.
18. The evening of December 9, Ms. Senko met the man at his house to drive together
to Eddie V’s, a restaurant in downtown Austin. Just before they left for dinner, however, the
man said he forgot something inside. Ms. Senko waited for several minutes in his car, and when
the man returned, he said he forgot to blow out a candle. Ms. Senko thought that this was odd

9936648.5
because he was inside his house much longer than it takes to blow out a candle. Later in the
evening, Ms. Senko recalls feeling what seemed to be pills in the man’s pocket. She asked him
about them and he refused to answer the question and instead changed the subject.
19. While at the restaurant, the two decided to eat dinner at the bar because the
restaurant section was very crowded. Over dinner, the man introduced Ms. Senko to the
bartender as a friend of his. Ms. Senko was not sure how the man knew the bartender, but while
she ate dinner at the bar, Ms. Senko noticed that the bartender would fill up her glass before it
was empty. Upon finishing dinner, the two went to Woody’s, a bar where the man’s friends had
gathered. The group played darts and the man brought Ms. Senko a drink. Ms. Senko believes
over the course of the evening, she had three or four drinks. Shortly after receiving a final drink
from the man while they were at Woody’s, Ms. Senko cannot remember the rest of the evening.
20. The next morning Ms. Senko awoke in her assailant’s bed without any clothes on
except her underwear. Her clothes were on the floor, and oddly, her bra had been folded and
tucked under the pillow on which she had been sleeping.
21. When Ms. Senko asked the perpetrator what happened, he became angry and
extremely defensive. He told her they did not have sex but “messed around.” Ms. Senko, who
had been the victim of sexual assault once before, knew that something more had happened.
Scared and confused, Ms. Senko quickly got dressed and left.
22. After Ms. Senko left, she received a text message from the man stating he was
“extremely upset how ur actin towards me and time with u. I feel u blame me for ur drunk stage.
I was wasted as well. I don’t appreciate this.”
23. After getting to her car, Ms. Senko immediately called a friend, confiding to her
that she believed she was date-raped. Ms. Senko went to her friend’s home and her friend then

9936648.5
drove to Breckenridge Hospital where Ms. Senko checked in at the Emergency Room. While at
Breckenridge Hospital, Ms. Senko’s blood was drawn. She ultimately received a SANE exam at
St. David’s Medical Center and reported the crime to the APD.
24. Eighty-seven (87) days after Ms. Senko reported the crime against her to the
APD, her case was closed because the Travis County DA’s Office declined prosecution. That
determination was made without the APD ever visiting the site of the crime to search for and
gather evidence, without contacting witnesses to the events that evening, and without
investigation of the statements made by the perpetrator. The determination was made even
before her final toxicology report was available. The DA’s Office never requested any sort of
investigation and did not follow up to ensure that the APD diligently pursued investigation of
Ms. Senko’s rape. Ms. Senko would not understand until 2019 that that her case was cleared
exceptionally by APD.
25. Because APD refused to properly investigate, collect evidence, or even wait for
the results of toxicology reports before clearing the case exceptionally, they failed to meet the
requirements set by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program to use such a
classification, including having gathered enough evidence to support an arrest. And because the
DA’s Office directed the exceptional clearance, they also failed to meet those requirements.
26. Ms. Senko sought police and medical assistance out of a desire to do the right
thing and to seek justice, with the hope of preventing other women from falling victim to the
same perpetrator in the future. She did not know then that she would enter a process that would
inflict ongoing traumas and secondary assaults on her for more than a decade.
27. From the initial interview with the on-call APD officer, Pedro Garzo, to the
subsequent conversations with the detective assigned to her case, Renee Avery Fox, Ms. Senko

9936648.5
was met with doubts and a repeated request to “cooperate,” 4 leaving her questioning whether she
was the victim or the perpetrator. Repeatedly, Ms. Senko attempted to contact the APD about
her case because she received few updates and no indication of progress.
28. The timeline of the APD’s investigation of Ms. Senko’s case did not assign any
urgency to securing valuable evidence, to protecting her and the community from having a
perpetrator walking free, or to allowing her case to move forward with prosecution. It took two
(2) days to assign a detective to her case. It took eight (8) days before initial contact was made
with the perpetrator. It took fifty-one (51) days to obtain the results of her SANE exam, and it
took 185 days to receive her final toxicology report.
29. The perpetrator provided a statement to APD, but unsurprisingly, that statement
did not match Ms. Senko’s account. No one conducted any further investigation, leaving Ms.
Senko to conclude that the perpetrator’s account was simply believed over hers—the victim. Ms.
Senko did not learn until many years later that APD and the DA’s Office were covering up the
fact that they did not fully investigate or prosecute almost any case in which a woman was
sexually assaulted by a man, and that the criteria they used to avoid prosecutions were driven by
assumptions and misconceptions about women based on their gender. Some of those biases are
delineated later herein.
30. Ultimately, because neither the APD nor the DA’s Office properly investigated
the crime, Ms. Senko was left without any recourse through the justice system or within the
Crime Victims Compensation program. Despite repeated assurances that she would be
compensated for the medical expenses incurred from the rape, she was ineligible for any Crime
4
At all times, Ms. Senko fully cooperated with the APD. For example, she provided the details
she could remember from the night of the assault, she agreed to have a SANE exam, and she
agreed to attempt a “pretense call” to her perpetrator at the APD’s direction.

9936648.5
Victims Compensation funds because APD and the DA’s Office “determined” there was not
enough information to establish a crime had been committed against her.
31. In the years following her assault, Ms. Senko would learn much about how sexual
assault in Austin and across the country is treated by law enforcement officials. She learned that
her case was one of thousands of cases that had been closed inappropriately through a means of
exceptional clearance allowing police departments to leave the impression that they are resolving
more sexual assault cases than they actually do.
32. She also learned many years later about the numerous failings of the Austin DNA
Crime Lab that analyzed her SANE exam, including Forensic Scientist Diana Morales who
signed off on her SANE exam analysis and results in 2007. That lab was ultimately closed and
nearly all of its employees were fired for the lab’s failures. The lab’s failures and substandard
services resulted in backlogs and compromised evidence, which were only detailed and analyzed
approximately a decade after Ms. Senko’s assault in an independent report from the Texas
Forensic Science Commission.5
33. Ms. Senko was left to move forward in the only way she knew how—by simply
accepting the outcome, filing away the lessons learned, and doing her best to bury the pain, the
fear, and the shame that so commonly exists for survivors of sexual assault.
(2) Named Plaintiff Amanda Day
34. Named Plaintiff Amanda Day was repeatedly and violently raped, and physically
assaulted by a man she dated in 2009 while livign in Austin, Texas. The sexual assaults were so
5
Texas Forensic Science Commission, Final Audit Report for Austin Police Department
Forensic Services Division DNA Section (July 8, 2016). A copy of the Final Audit Report is
available at
https://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/APD_Audit_Final_report_071116.pdf

9936648.5
severe that she was hospitalized more than once. The assaults occurred from May until
December of 2009.
35. The first time her assailant raped her, Ms. Day told him to stop, saying “no,” but
he forced himself upon her. She continued to fight him, but could not overtake his force. Ms.
Day told her mother of the rape, who took her to St. David’s Hospital for a SANE exam.
Unfortunately, due to an error in the instructions provided by the nurse, her urine sample was not
taken properly. Other evidence, including photos, was collected.
36. Another time, her assailant restrained her from behind, tore off her clothes, and
yanked her by her ankles. He forced himself upon her, pulling her hair and throwing his weight
on her left forearm behind her back. Ms. Day could not breathe due to the positional asphyxia,
and she passed out. Ms. Day had several bruises and was bleeding the day after the assault. In
another attack, the perpetrator wrapped his hands around her throat, squeezing it until she could
not breathe. The strangulations accompanied sexual assault, and could have resulted in her
death.
37. In yet another attack, her assailant anally raped her while she screamed and cried
in pain. He refused to stop, saying “it doesn’t hurt that bad.” As a result of the attack, Ms. Day
suffered a miscarriage and anal trauma that triggered ischemic colitis. Ms. Day required
hospitalization and medical treatment following this assault.
38. Ms. Day repeatedly tried to keep her assailant from raping her, telling him no,
crying, and trying to get out from under him, only to be met with violence and deadly force. The
violence against her included strangulation, bruising, anal trauma, and bleeding. Ms. Day’s
assailant kept her silent through threats, intimidation and efforts to control her, such that she
could not escape his violent patterns. For instance, one time Ms. Day told her assailant to leave

9936648.5
her apartment. He became angry and violent, taking out a knife and tracing it along her
collarbone, over to her shoulder, down to her arm, telling her that “women never leave me…I
leave them.” Another time, Ms. Day locked him out of her apartment. He threatened to break
the windows to get to her.
39. Ms. Day suffers from a severe form of PTSD and requires ongoing mental health
care as a result of the violence perpetrated against her. She has significant scarring in multiple
places on her body. She eventually obtained a lifetime protective order against her assailant in
2011 and thereafter left the Austin area.
40. When Ms. Day realized some years later, after returning to Austin in 2018, that
her assailant was likely also living in the city, she reported the violent assaults to APD well
within the statute of limitations for the crimes committed against her.
41. The officer assigned to Ms. Day’s case, Jason (last name unknown), concluded
with little to no investigation that because Ms. Day and her assailant had engaged in some
consensual activity before the violent rapes occurred, there would be no basis to prosecute the
violent crimes inflicted on her. The officer said that her prior consent to “kissing and stuff” (his
words) negated their ability to prove sexual assault. Of course having kissed the man prior to his
violent behavior does not mean that she consented to the vaginal and anal rape that was forced
upon her multiple times through violence, coercion, threats and deadly force. Jason also asked
Ms. Day in her initial interview “what panties were you wearing?” during one of the violent
rapes she reported. It is unclear what relevance a demeaning question like that may have had to
the multiple sexual assaults and traumas she endured, but the question did expose the
discriminatory assumptions of law enforcement—and previewed their later claim that the case
could not go forward because there had once been “kissing and stuff.”

9936648.5
42. Jason also told Ms. Day that the assaults were “family violence” as opposed to
“sexual assault”—criminal acts with a much shorter statute of limitations, that had since expired.
He indicated that because Ms. Day did not come forward within a year, there would not be a
basis to proceed further in the prosecution of the crimes. That Ms. Day did not come forward
within one year of her attacks does not override the fact that she was the victim of multiple
violent crimes, and all were crimes well within the statute of limitations for sexual assault when
she reported out of fear for her life.
43. The DA’s Office likewise failed Ms. Day. Jason told Ms. Day that for the reasons
he outlined, the DA’s Office would not prosecute her case. Later, the DA’s Office would deny
that they agreed with Jason’s assessment, but they utterly failed to put any effort toward Ms.
Day’s case and did not instruct APD to do so. The ADA assigned to the case also told Ms. Day
that she needed to have reported within a year in order to prosecute, and claimed there was no
mechanism by which to extradite her assailant from Nebraska, where it was believed he may
have gone by then.
44. APD and the DA’s Office never questioned the veracity of Ms. Day’s accounts;
instead, they blamed her for the violence her assailant inflicted upon her and her failure to come
forward sooner. As a result, her rapist was never even questioned about the sexual and deadly
violence he tortured her with, and has endured no consequence or even threat of arrest despite his
repeated use of deadly force in his various sexual attacks upon Ms. Day.
(3) Named Plaintiff Whitley Degollado
45. In 2019, Named Plaintiff Whitley Degollado was the victim of a gang rape
planned and organized online. Ms. Degollado was unaware she had been the victim of a gang
rape as it occurred because the man who organized it, a man she had been dating, did so

9936648.5
unbeknownst to her, specifically coordinated the steps to prevent her from knowing others were
involved, and kept her blindfolded during the assaults.
46. Ms. Degollado’s primary assailant, her boyfriend at the time, coordinated the rape
using the internet and social media sites. He solicited and identified several other men who
wanted to participate in the unlawful, nonconsensual acts. He then carefully set up the attacks so
that the men knew Ms. Degollado would be blindfolded—vulnerable without her sense of sight
—and unaware that the men were even entering the room.
47. Before the attack, Ms. Degollado’s primary assailant instructed the men to each
“take a turn.” He instructed them to never let her touch them, and to at all times maintain the
illusion that he was the person having intercourse with her from behind. The men did just what
Ms. Degollado’s primary assailant instructed without her knowledge and certainly without her
consent.
48. Ms. Degollado had consensual sexual relations with her primary assailant before
this attack, but she never consented to the gang rape he orchestrated. She had in no circumstance
agreed to be penetrated and passed around as part of a secret gang rape by men unknown to her
and procured by her then-boyfriend using the internet.
49. Ms. Degollado’s rapes are confirmed by significant written evidence. The men
who participated in the attack communicated with each other about it, and these communications
are documented with smartphone screen shots of text messages and other communication tools
found within social media sites that Ms. Degollado’s primary assailant used.
50. Ms. Degollado learned of the coordinated rape after it occurred, and then suffered
yet another sexual assault by the primary assailant. When Ms. Degollado confronted her then-

9936648.5
boyfriend about the gang rape he coordinated, he violently raped her. He then sent text messages
to Ms. Degollado, telling her that she “should be scared” because “I raped you.”
51. Ms. Degollado reported her multiple rapes to APD, and she provided APD with
copies of all the written evidence she acquired, including the text messages confirming the rapes
and the screenshots showing the intent to rape and confessing to the act of raping her.
Essentially, Ms. Degollado presented the APD with a written confession to multiple crimes.
52. APD, armed with written evidence of a confession to multiple rapes, spent only a
few days investigating before contacting the DA’s Office about Ms. Degollado’s rapes. Despite
clear evidence and a confession, the DA’s Office instructed the APD not to refer the case for
prosecution.
53. The DA’s Office apparently concluded that a confession was insufficient to
prosecute the multiple crimes against Ms. Degollado. Instead, the DA’s Office suggested that
Ms. Degollado’s prior sexual activity with her primary assailant invalidated her current claims.
In other words, the fact that Ms. Degollado consented to being intimate with her boyfriend
before he went on to coordinate a gang rape meant that any nonconsensual sexual activity
following that would not be prosecuted.
(4) Named Plaintiff Jessica Ragsdill
54. In June 2018, Named Plaintiff Jessica Ragsdill traveled to Austin, Texas to
participate in a professional conference, DattoCon2018, where she was drugged and raped after
attending a conference-sponsored social event.
55. Ms. Ragsdill left her home in North Texas to stay at the Fairmount Hotel in
Austin, Texas where the professional conference was held. As part of the conference, Ms.

9936648.5
Ragsdill participated in a sponsored social event at Stubbs BBQ. A conference badge was
required for admission.
56. Upon arriving at Stubbs BBQ, Ms. Ragsdill began socializing and participating in
the event, eating BBQ and consuming two to three drinks over the course of the evening.
Having two to three drinks was not an extraordinary amount of alcohol for Ms. Ragsdill to
consume at a social event over a period of time. Ms. Ragsdill next remembers standing outdoors
at a table with friends, and the very last thing she remembers from that evening was a man she
did not know. He handed her another drink and joined her conversation with friends.
57. The next morning, Ms. Ragsdill woke up in her hotel room in a confused state.
She noticed blood on the bed sheets and towels. She found her clothes from the previous night
folded on a chair in the room. She could tell that someone had used the shower but it had not
been her.
58. Ms. Ragsdill realized that she had been penetrated, vaginally and anally, and that
the blood she discovered was from injuries sustained during those acts. She also discovered
bruises on her thighs—bruises that looked like fingers. She tried to recall the details, but all she
could remember from the night before was a flash of being in a rideshare and a man telling her
not to worry, that he “had her.” She recalled the man having dark skin and stubble. Ms.
Ragsdill was confused, distraught, and scared. She could not fully remember what happened to
her or how she came to have bruises and wounds. Thereafter, Ms. Ragsdill continued to have
flashes of the prior night as she travelled home to North Texas. She did not share her fears and
what she discovered that morning with anyone, including her boss, with whom she was
travelling.

9936648.5
59. Upon returning home, Ms. Ragsdill confided in her friend, a nurse, about her
fractured memories, her wounds, and her bruises. Ms. Ragsdill’s friend encouraged to go to the
hospital for an exam. Ms. Ragsdill did go to a hospital, but that hospital did not have a sexual
assault nurse examiner available. She instead received a pelvic exam and sexually transmitted
disease tests.
60. Ms. Ragsdill then contacted the APD to make a report about what happened to
her. She was advised she needed to report the events to her local authorities, who could then file
a “courtesy report” with the APD. Ms. Ragsdill followed the instruction and made the report to
her local authorities in North Texas.
61. When the APD reached out to discuss the report, Detective Robert Thompson
encouraged Ms. Ragsdill to tell him everything she could recall about the night she was raped.
He explained that many sexual assault cases are never prosecuted because they are believed to be
too difficult for the DA to prove. Ms. Ragsdill told Detective Thompson everything she could
recall about her rape and the events and facts leading up to it.
62. Detective Thompson was able to obtain security footage from the Fairmount
Hotel from the night the rape occurred. That footage showed Ms. Ragsdill entering the hotel
with a man who looked as she had described. The footage also showed that Ms. Ragsdill was
unable to stand or walk independently. She was obviously impaired, and the police so noted.
63. Detective Thompson, through contacts with the rideshare company used that
evening, was also able to identify the man who took Ms. Ragsdill back to the hotel. He located
his name and a picture of the assailant at DattoCon18. The photo he located of the assailant at
the conference was one with the keynote speaker, Richard Branson. Ms. Ragsdill also provided
photos of the bruises on her body and a statement about the assault.

9936648.5
64. Detective Thompson contacted the suspect approximately two months after
receiving Ms. Ragsdill’s initial report, on August 24, 2018. The suspect admitted to having
intercourse with Ms. Ragsdill. He admitted she was intoxicated, said that he had not had sex in a
long time, and that he decided he wanted to have sex with her. He claimed Ms. Ragsdill was
awake the whole time. He said he did not usually do things like that. Detective Thompson
reported on the very same day that he “staffed” the case with Assistant DA Mona Shea, and that
the DA’s Office declined to prosecute due to a “lack of physical evidence,” and that the case was
“cleared exceptionally.”
65. Neither Detective Thompson nor Assistant District Attorney Shea spoke to Ms.
Ragsdill on August 24, 2018, either before or after they decided to close the case. They simply
decided to close the case because the suspect claimed he had sex with her and that while she was
intoxicated, it was not rape.
66. In fact, ADA Shea made no attempt to speak with Ms. Ragsdill at all. Only after
Ms. Ragsdill asked the APD Victim Services representative to arrange a meeting with the person
who made the decision to end the case, and only after Ms. Ragsdill followed up multiple times
for a meeting to discuss the case would she hear from ADA Shea. But the decision to
exceptionally clear the case had been made and would not be reconsidered. In short, ADA Shea
declined the case without ever speaking to the victim and instructed APD to stop investigating.
67. The APD and the DA’s Office did not consider Ms. Ragsdill’s credibility as a
witness in any sense or interview others before refusing to prosecute her case. Instead, they
dropped the case, despite video footage from the hotel that confirmed her incapacity and
photographic evidence of physical injuries, after the suspect simply denied the rape.

9936648.5
68. As a result of the foregoing, Ms. Ragsdill suffered extreme emotional and
physical distress, including mental trauma and a miscarriage. The Texas Attorney General’s
Office denied her crime victim’s compensation request to pay her medical bills associated with
the sexual assault exam based on a “finding” by APD and the DA’s Office that there was no
evidence of a crime against her.
B. Thousands of Women in Travis County Have Been, and Continue to Be, Subjected
to the Same Types of Unconstitutional, Discriminatory, and Unfair Treatment by
Defendants.
69. In addition to the Named Plaintiffs in this matter, there are thousands of other
female victims of sexual assault in Travis County that share the experiences of: (a) being
disbelieved, dismissed, and discriminated against when they report the crimes committed against
them; and (b) seeing their cases languish for years or be refused/dismissed, despite evidence that
could be used to prove the assault or identify the assailant. Likewise, there are thousands of
women in Travis County whose SAKs were not timely processed or analyzed, or even afforded
the minimum diligence of care in storage and handling. And there are thousands of women in
Travis County who have been subjected to Defendants’ unconstitutional and discriminatory
Policies that treat sexual assault against women differently from every other violent crime.
Thousands of women in Travis County have been, and continue to be, impacted because, as
alleged in more detail below, Defendants’ conduct is systemic, ongoing, and gives rise to a clear
inference of gender discrimination.
(1) Sexual Assault is a Violent Crime that Disproportionately Affects Women.
70. A 2012 national study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found
that one in five adult American women (or 20%) will be raped in their lifetime. One in 71 men
(or 1.4%) will also be victims of sexual assault.

9936648.5
71. In Texas, a 2015 study by the Institute on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
at the University of Texas at Austin found that approximately two in five Texas women (or 40%)
will experience sexual violence in their lifetime, with only nine percent reporting it to police.
72. According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center and data from the
U.S. Department of Justice, 9% of all sexual assault victims are men, while 91% are women.
73. APD’s Annual Crime and Traffic Reports include the “official numbers” for rapes
reported to the APD on an annual basis.6 The total number of rapes reported to APD for each of
the years from 2007 to 2018 in the Annual Crime and Traffic Reports are reflected in the
following table:
Year Rapes Reported to APD
2007 328
2008 273
2009 265
2010 265
2011 211
2012 209
2013 217
2014 571
2015 487
2016 747
2017 834
6
APD’s Annual Crime and Traffic Reports for 2008 through 2018 are available at
http://www.austintexas.gov/page/annual-crime-traffic-reports.

9936648.5
2018 787
74. Thus, a total of at least 5,194 rapes were reported to the APD between 2007 and
2018.
75. The APD’s Annual Crime and Traffic Report for 2019 has not been published and
APD has also not published any Chief Monthly Citywide Reports for 2019, because they were
“in the process of developing a new report that provides crime counts according to NIBRS” to
make the reporting “more encompassing.” Chief Manley’s Monthly Citywide Reports for 2020
have been published through July 2020, however.7 The new reporting format provides data
about reported rapes, forcible sodomy, and sexual assault with an object. The total reported
cases of those combined categories from January 2020 to July 2020 is 268. The July 2020 report
also includes a comparison to the previous years’ totals from January 2019 through July 2019,
which is 347. When the partial year information for both 2019 and 2020 are added to the rapes
reported between 2007 and 2018, at least 5,809 rapes were reported to the APD between 2007
and July 2020.
76. On information and belief, the percentage of female sexual assault victims in
Travis County is similar to the national statistics, meaning approximately 5,286 women were
sexually assaulted between 2007 and July 2020 in Travis County and reported the assaults to the
APD,8 according to APD’s “official numbers.” The “official number” of rapes reported to the
APD between 2007 and July 2020 is, however, significantly underreported for two reasons.
77. First, in 2014, the FBI modified its definition of rape. As a result, “sexual
assaults that previously did not meet the criteria for rape” were included in APD’s 2014
7
The Chief’s Monthly Reports are available at https://www.austintexas.gov/page/chiefs-
monthly-reports.
8
Multiplying 5,809 by 91% yields 5,286 rapes.

9936648.5
numbers, “yielding higher rape counts/rates.”9 For 2013, before the FBI’s modified definition,
217 rapes were reported in APD’s “official” numbers. When APD applied the new definition to
the numbers in 2014, the APD reported that 571 rapes occurred.
78. In its 2014 Report, the APD gave context for the significant jump in rapes
between 2013 and 2014 by saying that “if the new definition is applied to 2013 counts, rape
incidents would be down about 9% [in 2014].” 10 That is, under the FBI’s 2014 definition, the
2013 reported number of 217 rapes would have been 9% higher than the 571 rapes reported in
2014, or 627 rapes.11
79. The total of 627 rapes in 2013 is roughly 2.9 times higher 12 than the 217 rapes
officially reported by APD in its 2013 Annual Report. If numbers reported by APD for the years
2007 through 2012 are also corrected at the same rate of 2.9, the revised total rapes reported to
APD between 2007 and July 2020 is 9,165, with approximately 8,340 of the victims being
female.13 A table reflecting the revised annual numbers when the APD’s first mistake is
corrected is below:
9
APD Annual Crime and Traffic Report: 2014 Final Report (Nov. 16, 2015), available at
http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Police/2014_crime_and_traffic_report_10071
5.pdf. APD’s new definition in 2014, however, still did not include all sexual assaults defined by
the FBI.
10
Id.
11
Multiplying 627 by 9% yields 56.43 rapes. Subtracting 56 from 627 yields 571 rapes, the
number reported for 2014 by APD.
12
Dividing 627 by 217 yields 2.889.
13

9936648.5
2007 951
2008 791
2009 768
2010 768
2011 611
2012 606
2013 629
2014 571
2015 487
2016 747
2017 834
2018 787
2019* 347
2020* 268
80. Second, in December 2017, APD acknowledged that “during 2014 and 2015,
Austin’s rape count was underreported,” because when the FBI broadened its rape definition to
add sodomy and sexual assault with an object [in 2014], APD added only sodomy.” 14 “Imprecise
case coding” apparently “prevented accurate counts at the time, but since then, [APD] fixed case
14
APD Annual Crime and Traffic Report: 2016 Final Report (Decl. 2017), available at
http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Police/2016_crime_and_traffic_report_12201
7.pdf.

9936648.5
coding problems and corrected 2015 cases to produce a more accurate 2015 rape count: 730.” 15
That revised number is 1.5 times higher16 than the 487 cases reported by APD in its 2015 Annual
Report.
81. If numbers reported by the APD for the years 2007 through 2015 are corrected for
APD’s failure to include sexual assault with an object in its historical rape counts at the same
rate of 1.5, the total number of rapes reported to the APD between 2007 and 2020 is 12,256, 17
with approximately 11,152 of the victims being female. 18 A table summarizing the annual data
corrected for both of the APD’s mistakes is below:
2007 1,426
2008 1,186
2009 1,152
2010 1,152
2011 916
2012 909
2013 943
2014 856
2015 730
2016 747
2017 834
15
Id.
16
Dividing 730 by 487 yields 1.5.
17
The total number of reported rapes from 2016 to July 2020 is 2,938. Adding 2,938 to 9,273
yields 12,256 rapes.
18

9936648.5
2018 787
2019* 347
2020* 268
82. Simply put, sexual assault is a violent crime that overwhelmingly targets and
impacts thousands of women in Travis County.
(2) Sexual Assault is Rarely Prosecuted in Travis County, Particularly when the
Victim is a Woman.
83. End Violence against Women International reports that only an estimated 5 to
20% of rapes are reported to police, only 0.4 to 5.4% are prosecuted, and only 0.2 to 5.2% result
in a conviction. The numbers for Travis County, specifically, are on the very lowest end or
worse than the national average, according to Defendants’ own data.
84. According to data gathered by the Travis County Sexual Assault Response and
Resource Team (the “SARRT”),19 between July 2016 and June 2017, APD received 1,268 calls
for assistance on sexual assault cases. Of those cases, 1,161 were “investigated” by the APD,
and only 96 arrests were made.20
19
The SARRT is “the designated, coordinated community response to sexual assault in Travis
County, Texas.” It “is an established working body comprising the agencies involved in the
response to post-pubescent adolescent and adult sexual assault victims,” including “law
enforcement, attorneys, advocates, university programs, prosecutors, Sexual Assault Nurse
Examiners (SANEs), and hospitals.” In 2015, “the SAFE Alliance and two SARRT member
agencies were awarded a 3-year Office of Violence Against Women Grant to Encourage Arrests
through the Department of Justice.” One of the primary deliverables “was a community-wide
needs assessment of the SARRT response to sexual assault.” Over 15 agencies and entities
participated and contributed data for the CNA, including the Defendants. A true and correct
copy of the completed Community Needs Assessment (the “CNA”) is attached hereto as Exhibit
A.
20
Exhibit A, at 27.

9936648.5
85. During the same period, the Travis County DA’s Office received 224 sexual
assault case referrals for prosecution.21 The DA decided to proceed with only 77 of those 224
cases.22
86. Of those 77 cases, during the time period of data collection, 8 perpetrators
pleaded guilty as charged, and only one case—involving the rape of a male victim by a serial
rapist who had previously raped multiple women in Travis County—went to trial.23
87. In 10 of the 77 cases, the charges were dismissed during the data collection
period, and in another 17, the assailant pleaded guilty to other largely non-sexual charges.24 The
remaining 41 cases remained active after June 30, 2017, but upon information and belief, at least
30 additional cases were dismissed by the Current DA over the rest of calendar year 2017.
88. Thus, based on the data contained in the CNA, 1,268 calls related to sexual
assaults were made only to the APD from July 2016 to June 2017, and during the same period
only 9 assailants either pleaded guilty to the sexual assault crime charged (8) or were found
guilty of the sexual assault crime charged following a trial (1), which is approximately 0.7% of
the number of calls received by the APD.25 The same numbers also suggest that during the data
collection period, less than 0.08% of sexual assault calls made to the APD resulted in a trial of
the assailant.26
89. In response to the ongoing criticism of her office and the filing of the Federal
Lawsuit, District Attorney Margaret Moore has made numerous claims, admissions, and
21
Id. at 28. The DA’s Office receives referrals from agencies other than the APD, like other
police departments in the county and the Travis County Sherriff’s Office, which is why 226
cases were referred during the same time APD only made 96 arrests.
22
Id. at 28.
23
Id.
24
Id.
25
Dividing 9 by 1,268 equals 0.007, which is 0.7%.
26
Dividing 1 by 1,268 equals 0.00078, which rounds to 0.08%.

9936648.5
disclosures pertaining to the number of sexual assault cases her administration was handling as
compared to the prior administration—suggesting that her predecessor did very little for
survivors. For example, data put forward by the DA’s Office in August of 2019 indicates that
for the years 2015 and 2016, only a single sexual assault was tried to a jury by DA Lehmberg’s
administration.
90. DA Moore’s assertions about her predecessor’s lack of care with respect to sexual
assault cases appear to be true, but DA Moore’s assessment of her own administration’s work
continues to be based on misleading and incorrect data. For example, she has claimed that her
office disposed of more than 30 sexual assault cases in 2017 through pleas or convictions.
However, a review of the case dispositions demonstrate that only 8 pleas or convictions were to a
charge of sexual assault. For 2018, DA Moore claims to have obtained more than 40 pleas or
convictions for sexual assault, but again the case dispositions confirm that only 11 of those pleas
or convictions were for an actual sexual assault charge. The remaining cases may have begun as
a sexual assault report, but they were pled down to non-sexual charges. In 2019, DA Moore
likewise claimed to have obtained 28 pleas or convictions for sexual assault cases, but again the
actual dispositions reveal that only 6 of them actually involved convictions or pleas to a sexual
assault charge. The remaining cases were pled down to non-sexual offenses, most of them
misdemeanor offenses.
91. Publicly available data regarding the disposition of all cases involving sexual
assault of an adult in Travis County courts from January 2017 through December 2019 reveals
the same patterns. During that time period, apparently 208 sexual assault of an adult cases were
disposed of in Travis County, 63 of which were resolved through guilty pleas 27 or convictions.
27
The Texas Office of Court Administration maintains an online Court Activity Reporting and
Directory System that allows for ad-hoc searches of case disposition in criminal and civil district
courts through the State. The online search process can be accessed at

9936648.5
But 95 sexual assault of an adult cases were dismissed during the same time period, after having
been originally “accepted” by DA Moore’s office for prosecution. And of the 63 cases that were
resolved through pleas or convictions, 28 of them involved only probation (and no jail time
whatsoever) or minimal time in a local county jail.
(3) Female Victims of Sexual Assault in Travis County Receive Disparate

Treatment Relative to Victims of Other Violent Crimes and Relative to Male
Victims of Sexual Assault.
92. Women who are victims of sexual assault rely on the statements and
commitments made to them by government actors in the criminal justice system, including
Defendants. They routinely submit to invasive forensic exams, in which samples of tissue are
removed from the most intimate areas of their bodies and pictures are taken of any part of their
naked bodies. The exam can last hours, and to be helpful to the investigation, in most cases,
must be done within 24 hours of the sexual assault and before the victim can shower or take any
other steps she may wish or need to cope with the trauma she has experienced.
93. Victims are then subjected to an interview, which may or may not involve an
officer trained in trauma-informed practices, and may or may not involve someone from the
department of victim services. The interview involves difficult and invasive questions, all of
which women submit to in order to (ostensibly) aid in the investigation, apprehension and
potential prosecution of their attackers. Despite the trauma that this process itself can impose on
already fragile victims, many report going through it in order to protect others who may be
victimized by the same assailant.
94. In the course of these interactions with government officials, female victims of
sexual assault routinely confront obstacles that are not present for victims of other violent crime,
http://card.txcourts.gov/AdHocSearchNew.aspx. The available court data does not describe the

charge ultimately pled to in the cases disposed of through pleas.

9936648.5
including: (1) victim blaming (routinely referred to by the APD, the Former Police Chief, the
Police Chief, the Former DA, and the Current DA as “credibility issues”); and (2) purported
consent problems. Victim blaming includes, but is not limited to, a focus on the victim’s past
sexual history, alcohol or drug abuse, clothing worn on the date of the crime, location on the date
of the crime, and/or general mental stability both before and after the crime.
95. With other violent crimes, victim blaming does not occur, nor does the issue of
consent arise. Lack of consent is presumed. With a homicide, for example, the victim is
deceased, and no one routinely questions whether the victim of a burglary was “asking for it.”
But, as reflected by the experiences of the Named Plaintiffs, female rape victims in Travis
County almost universally encounter those issues when they report the crimes against them.
96. Sexual assault investigations in Travis County are also disproportionally closed
through a process called “exceptional clearance.” Shortly after the Federal Lawsuit was filed, a
ProPublica and Newsy report found that Austin was improperly exceptionally clearing hundreds
of sexual assault cases per year. The APD did an internal review and claimed its clearances were
appropriate. A second review done by the Texas Department of Public Safety confirmed the
news report had been correct, and that the APD had been inappropriately using the exceptional
clearance code to clear cases.
97. The impact of the inappropriate use of “exceptional clearances” is that reporting
that way enabled the APD and the City of Austin to report out crime statistics that made Austin
look safer and more effective at solving sexual assault than is true. Those cases showed up as
“closed” or “solved” as opposed to showing the truth—that arrests had not been made and
investigations had simply ceased, whether because law enforcement in the APD stopped work or
because the DA’s Office told the APD that they should not refer those cases for prosecution.

9936648.5
98. On information and belief, the APD and the DA’s Office use the exceptional
clearance method of “closing” cases significantly more for sexual assaults than for any other
violent crime. The result of routinely using this technique in sexual assault cases is obvious:
sexual assaults that are “solved” or “closed” are not prosecuted at the same rates as other violent
crime. Indeed, a comparison of the percentage of “solved” or “cleared” crimes by APD that
ultimately have cases filed by the DA’s office for the years 2014 through 2018 reveals that on
average only 16.54% of rapes that were “solved” or “cleared” by the APD were actually
prosecuted by the DA’s Office. Yet, data for the same time period indicates that on average
100% of solved/cleared murders are prosecuted; 100% of solved/cleared aggravated assaults are
prosecuted; 100% of solved/cleared robberies are prosecuted; and 100% of solved/cleared
burglaries are prosecuted. According to the same data sets, even solved/cleared auto thefts are
on average prosecuted more than 83% of the time, meaning that if a woman is raped and the
APD clears/solves that case, she has a less than 17% chase of having that sexual assault case
prosecuted, but if that same woman has her car stolen and the APD clears/solves that case, she
has a more than 83% chance of seeing justice for that.28
99. By not referring the cases in which there is probable cause and a known suspect
for prosecution, the APD and the DA’s Office have been able to mislead the public with the
statistics they publish. The APD and the DA’s Office collaborated and agreed not to follow the
usual process with certain cases in order to avoid adding those cases to the DA’s Office’s
numbers of “declined” or “unindicted” sexual assault cases. By so agreeing and so doing, the
APD and the DA’s Office ensured that the perpetrators involved would never be held
accountable, arrested, or even questioned, in some cases, and that the victims in those cases
28
This data was included in a presentation made to the City’s Public Safety Commission at its
June 3, 2019 meeting, the full contents of which can be found at
http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=324589.

9936648.5
would not see justice. The agreement between the APD and the DA’s Office also ensured that
the public reporting would mislead the public and others into a false sense of security that sexual
assault was being appropriately handled and taken seriously as a crime.
100. About six months after the Federal Lawsuit was filed, the Austin City Council
unanimously passed a resolution requiring the Austin City Manager to retain a third-party
investigator to inspect sexual assaults reported to APD over the last seven years. 29 The audit
must examine at least 200 cases per year, or 50 percent of the cases per year, whichever number
is greater.
101. The City’s resolution is an attempt to gather information and data and understand
precisely where the APD’s and City’s systems are failing. The third-party investigator will also
make recommendations on how to improve the City’s and APD’s response to sexual assault.
The City’s decision to undergo a third-party audit and to be transparent with the results is an
admission to Plaintiffs and the Class that the City Defendants have failed them.
102. In fact, several City Council members admitted the failures of the City’s systems
in their public comments supporting the resolution. For example, Council Member Alison Alter,
the resolution’s author, stated:
“So I appreciate the opportunity to speak to my resolution. . . . I want to start by saying

that tonight we declare Austin, we have a problem, and then together we can take the next
step toward doing right by sexual assault survivors. As a council, we have an opportunity
together with [C]hief Manley and [C]ity [M]anager Cronk to acknowledge openly,
honestly, and with intention, that sexual assault is a violent crime. That sexual assault is
too prevalent in our city. That sexual assault disproportionately hurts women.”
“We all recognize that our system is not created to provide healing and justice to sexual
assault survivors. . . This resolution [is to] help us to get the information and the data that
we need as a council to get to that deeper ‘why’ behind the problems we’re seeing so that
we can create a system that is survivor focused.”
29
A true and correct copy of the City’s Resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

9936648.5
“Council, the chief, the city manager – we all recognize that we are at a turning point in
our community and that we recognize that there’s a problem that we have an opportunity
to address. . . The first step in addressing a problem is admitting it, and I think we have
common understanding there.”
“I commit to you that I will be an unwaiverring [sic] ally, an advocate for justice for
survivors of sexual assault, and I am dedicated to transforming the system that is
currently failing us so that it does not fail survivors in the future.”
103. Council Member Ann Kitchen similarly said:
“I have some idea of what violence in our society does to women. From what I saw as a
rape crisis counselor, I learned how our system and our society fails women especially. . .
. So we have to reform this system from start to finish, and we need to start right here at
home with the city of Austin and what we’re doing in our own shop. This independent
third-party review is a necessary step as we’ve all been saying.”
104. And Mayor Steve Adler said:
“Bottom line, I think that what I would say is that this is actually pretty simple. We have
far too many sexual assaults that are resulting in too few perpetrators being taken off our
streets. And as a community we need to understand why that is so that we can do better.”
105. Additionally, after the Federal Lawsuit was filed, then-Travis County Judge Sarah
Eckhardt asked Wendy Davis in 2019 (prior to her announcing her Congressional run) to work
with the parties to identify opportunities for “healing.” Davis met with many of the parties and
stakeholders—including counsel for the Federal Lawsuit Plaintiffs. As a part of that process, the
Federal Lawsuit Plaintiffs made several proposals about improvements for survivors in the law
enforcement system.
106. No report was ever delivered by County Judge Eckhardt in relation to these
efforts, and it is unknown by Plaintiffs whether the City or the County implemented any of the
changes recommended by stakeholders. For her part, DA Moore has steadfastly maintained that
the problem is female victims who did not cooperate.

9936648.5
C. The APD’s Policies, Customs, and Practices Unconstitutionally Discriminate against
Female Victims of Sexual Assault in Travis County.
107. In the last ten years, the APD, the Police Chief, and the Former Police Chief have
implemented numerous policies, practices, and customs regarding sexual assault cases that
discriminate against women and deprive them of equal protection of the laws. While these
Policies may be visited slightly differently upon different victims, the overall pattern of
discrimination against female victims of sexual assault is pervasive and systemic, and results in
women being injured and traumatized in their interactions with law enforcement. The scope of
these Policies is broad, and the culture of the APD begins with its Chiefs.
(1) Former Chief Art Acevedo
108. Defendant Art Acevedo became Chief of the APD in 2007 and remained Chief
until December 2016. Upon information and belief, prior to his time at the APD, Chief Acevedo
was himself the subject of sexual harassment allegations. During Chief Acevedo’s tenure, the
APD received “official” reports of at least 3,573 rapes. But, as described above, this “official
number” is likely significantly underreported, and Chief Acevedo presided over an APD that
likely received reports of approximately 10,000 rapes.
109. At the same time, during Chief Acevedo’s tenure, a massive backlog of untested
rape kits was accumulating within APD. By April 2016, the backlog was approximately 2,700
rape kits in evidence storage, going back as far as the early 1990s.30
30
See Sorenson Forensics, Rape Kit Backlog: Austin PD to Partner with Sorenson Forensics
(Apr. 22, 2016), available at https://sorensonforensics.com/rape-kit-backlog-austin-pd-to-
partner-with-sorenson-forensics/.

9936648.5
110. In June 2016, the APD DNA Lab was closed for incompetency following the
conclusion of an audit conducted by the Texas Forensic Science Commission. 31 The audit called
into question DNA results in thousands of cases.32
111. The APD and Chief Acevedo knew there were significant problems with the APD
DNA Lab as early as 2011. And a whistleblower was pushed out of the department altogether,
although each of her allegations about the APD DNA Lab turned out to be true. Moreover, the
APD DNA Lab determined on its own which evidence to test or prioritize for a period of time,
and typically favored homicide cases over sexual assault cases, although sexual assault cases
made up the bulk of its work—all of which contributed to and perpetuated the backlog of SAKs.
Indeed, when the APD DNA Lab was finally closed in 2016, the backlog of sexual assault kits
had ballooned to approximately 4,000.33
112. One of the last things Chief Acevedo did during his tenure at the APD was
commit that he would find funding within the APD’s “existing fiscal year’s budget to fund the
analysis of the current backlogged sexual assault related cases—and any incurred during the
closure of APD’s DNA lab—while the lab remains closed.”34 He made that commitment in
31
See Claire Rickie, New Austin DNA lab chief will tackle 4,000 cases with contamination
concerns, KXAN (Nov. 29, 2016), https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/new-austin-dna-
labchief-will-tackle-4000-cases-with-contamination-concerns/994942254.
32
See id.
33
Jack Craver, By outsourcing, APD has made major progress on sex assault kit backlog, Austin
Monitor (Dec. 12, 2017), https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2017/12/outsourcing-apd-
made-major-progress-sex-assault-kit-backlog/. In July 2016, APD Commander Nick Wright
also provided an update on the APD DNA Lab and the rape kit backlog to the SARRT. During
that update, he confirmed that the DNA Lab was shut down, that the audit of the DNA Lab
concluded that seven (7) additional full-time, fully trained DNA analysts were needed, and that
the DNA errors at the Lab required re-training on current procedure. Commander Wright also
stated that the “current backlog cases” numbered 470, that the “overall backlog” for APD was
3,000, and that there were 500 backlog cases at the Travis County Sheriff’s Office.
34
SAFE, APD’s Pledge to Clear Rape Kit Backlog a ‘Great First Step’ (Sept. 13, 2016),
available at http://www.safeaustin.org/2016/09/13/apd-pledge-great-first-step/ (hereinafter
“APD’s Pledge to Clear Rape Kit Backlog”).

9936648.5
September 2016, then left to lead the Houston Police Department two months later, and, upon
information and belief, a backlog of untested SAKs still exists today—although it now seemingly
resides in several lab locations, rather than in the APD’s immediate possession.
113. During Chief Acevedo’s tenure, the APD also maintained a wall in its sexual
assault unit on which numerous pictures of female victims were posted—each one purportedly
representing a “false report” that officers had unilaterally determined had no merit. Officers
posted pictures of these “debunked” female accusers on the wall as a matter of pride, as trophies
of their “investigations.” Meanwhile, the vast majority of the other 92-98%35 of reported cases in
Travis County either languished or were never presented for prosecution under Chief Acevedo’s
watch.
114. Also during Chief Acevedo’s tenure, on May 24, 2014, two APD officers made
jokes about ignoring crime, catcalled a woman on the street, and said, “Go ahead and call the
cops. They can’t un-rape you.”36 Neither of the officers was terminated.
115. Just six months later—also during Chief Acevedo’s tenure—APD Officer
Andrew Pietrowski commented about the then-recent video of NFL running back Ray Rice
punching and knocking out his fiancée and said:
Now, stop and think about this. I don’t care who you are. You think about the
women’s movement today, [women say] ‘Oh, we want to go [into] combat,’ and
then, ‘We want equal pay, and we want this.’ You want to go fight in combat and
sit in a foxhole? You go right ahead, but a man can’t hit you in public here?
Bulls—t! You act like a whore, you get treated like one!37
35
End Violence Against Women International reports that evidence-based estimates suggest that
only 2-8% of sexual assault allegations are determined to be false (and it is the police who
typically decide whether those reports are false).
36
The comments were recorded on video by the dashcam located in the officers’ patrol vehicle.
The video is publicly available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjjbC5wLSQs.
37
Officer Pietrowski retired from the APD after learning that KUT was going to air his
comments.

9936648.5
116. Upon information and belief, Chief Acevedo was a part of various internal
presentations and reports involving officer-on-officer sexual harassment and assault. Upon
information and belief, Chief Acevedo dismissed allegations of sexual assault between officers
as “bad sex” or something the female officer just regretted after the fact, despite evidence
demonstrating injury to the female officer.
117. During Chief Acevedo’s tenure, the APD also failed to adequately train its
officers. And at least one official APD Patrol Utilization Study concluded that the sex crimes
unit was understaffed. The study indicated that in 2012—when the official count for 2011 data
was 211 rapes, but the actual count was likely in the range of 916 rapes—14.7 investigators were
needed to handle the workload associated with sexual assaults for the “official” count of 211. At
the time, APD had 11 investigators dedicated to sexual assaults.38
118. One of the Named Plaintiffs—Ms. Senko—reported her respective sexual assault
to the APD during Chief Acevedo’s tenure, when the sex crimes unit was understaffed, when
rapes were being severely undercounted, when APD officers were not trained in basic procedures
related to sexual assault investigations, when officers were marginalizing and demeaning female
rape victims on the walls of the police house, when officers were laughing about the fact that the
police “can’t un-rape” women, when yet another officer was referring to a female victim of
domestic violence as a “whore,” and condoning that she be “treated like one,” when rape kit
evidence was simply not being processed for years—or even decades—at a time, and when the
APD’s DNA lab was cross-contaminating samples, otherwise improperly testing samples, and
proceeding so inadequately that it was eventually shut down.
38
Austin Police Department, Patrol Utilization Study: Final Report (July 2012), available at
https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Police/PERF_Final_Report_-_Austin.pdf.

9936648.5
(2) Current Chief Brian Manley
119. Defendant Brian Manley took over the APD from Chief Acevedo on an interim
basis in December 2016. He was officially promoted to Chief on June 14, 2018. He has been a
member of the APD for almost three decades, and immediately prior to becoming Interim Chief,
he served as the Chief of Operations for the APD. During that time, Chief Manley was well
aware of the ongoing rape kit backlog, problems at the APD DNA lab, and the lack of training
provided to members of the APD.
120. In fact, when then-Chief Acevedo committed to finding money to clean up the
backlog of rape kits in the fall of 2016 (before he then left the APD), Chief Manley—the Chief
of Operations for the APD at the time—stated: “What you heard is a commitment by our
department to clear up our backlog.”39 At the time Chief Manley made that statement, the DNA
backlog for current sexual assault cases—not historical cases in the backlog—numbered 484.40
121. Just two weeks after assuming his new role in December 2016, Chief Manley
announced that the APD was stopping all efforts to reopen the APD DNA Lab and that the
recently hired Chief Forensics Officer was being removed because he did not have the requisite
degree and qualifications.41 The failures of the APD with regard to these issues continued and
intensified under Chief Manley’s watch.
122. On February 22, 2017, Emily LeBlanc, one of the two co-chairs of the SARRT
sent a letter to Mayor Steve Adler, Interim City Manager Elaine Hart, and then-Interim Chief
39
See SAFE, APD’s Pledge to Clear Rape Kit Backlog, available at
http://www.safeaustin.org/2016/09/13/apd-pledge-great-first-step/.
40
See Robert Maxwell, Travis County judge calls DNA testing backlog ‘critical’, KXAN (Nov.
7, 2016), https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/travis-county-judge-calls-dna-testing-
backlog-critical_2018022711143364/994944722.
41
See Andy Jechow, APD DNA lab closed for foreseeable future, forensics chief removed,
KXAN (Dec. 16, 2016), https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/apd-dna-lab-will-not-reopen-
forensics-manger-removed-from-job/995061784.

9936648.5
Manley requesting information about the APD DNA backlog and expressing concerns that rape
kits were not actually being tested, were instead being “warehoused” at various locations, that as
a result, the number of APD cases awaiting testing numbered 4,000, and that “most of those are
sexual assault cases.”42 In closing, the SARRT letter stated:
[W]e are no longer confident that the information that has been relayed to the
community and to the SARRT over the past 9 months is accurate. We
respectfully request that you take immediate action to clarify how evidence is
being tested and to be clear and transparent with all stakeholders moving forward.
We also urge you to address the long-term plan for testing evidence with urgency.
It is unacceptable to wait several months or years to develop a plan. Victims are
already made to wait years for justice. Any further delay would put further undue
burden on the community’s most vulnerable residents. Furthermore, allowing
evidence to go untested means that perpetrators are not held accountable and
continue to pose an imminent threat to public safety.43
123. Ms. LeBlanc copied the Austin Public Safety Commission, the Austin
Commission for Women, and City Council members Ora Houston, Delia Garz, Sabino Renteria,
Gregorio Casar, Ann Kitchen, Jimmy Flannigan, Leslie Pool, Ellen Troxclair, Kathie Tovo, and
Alison Alter on the letter.44
124. On March 14, 2017, Assistant City Manager Rey Arellano responded to the
February 22 SARRT with his own letter, copying the Mayor, City Council, Interim City
Manager Elaine Hart, and then-Interim Chief Manley. Mr. Arrellano’s letter revealed that the
SARRT’s concerns were correct with regard to the rape kits: “DPS ha[d] completed 45 cases
since June 2016.”45 He also confirmed that the City of Austin “currently had 2535 cases
42
A true and correct copy of the February 22, 2017 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
43
See id.
44
See id.; see also Sarah Marloff, Sexual Assault Advocates Demand Answers for Rape Kit
Negligence, The Austin Chronicle (Mar. 1, 2017), available at
https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2017-03-01/sexual-assault-advocates-demand-
answers-for-rape-kit-negligence/.
45
See id.

9936648.5
awaiting DNA analysis” and of those, “1686 cases [were] Sexual Assault kits (1233 DANY SAK
and 453 non-DANY SAK).”46
125. In other words, for the nine-month period between June 2016—when the APD
DNA Lab shut down—and the date of Mr. Arellano’s letter, only 45 cases involving DNA
analysis had been submitted to and analyzed by DPS. It is unclear whether any of those were
cases of sexual assault.
126. In the summer of 2017, new concerns about APD’s handling, storing, and
processing of rape kit evidence emerged. On June 8, 2017, APD Lab Commander Michael
Eveleth provided an update to the SARRT, which included a report that one of the outside DNA
labs had found mold inside of one rape kit and that some “1990s kits were found to have external
mold.”47
127. And on June 27, 2017, APD Assistant Chief Troy Gay wrote a memorandum
regarding the hundreds of sexual assault kits in APD storage that had been determined to have
mold growing on the outside of them.48 An audit of sexual assault kits in storage at APD found
that of 1,629 cases stored in the refrigerator, 849 showed some signs of mold on the outside. 49
APD later confirmed that of the 849 moldy kits in existence, 824 were collected between 1990
and 2010.50
46
The references to the DANY SAKs are to rape kits that were being tested using grant funds
from the District Attorney’s Office in New York City. In 2015, the APD received nearly $1.9
million from the Manhattan DA to help clear Austin’s rape kit backlog. See Katie Hall, Austin,
Travis County authorities to receive money to solve rape cases, My Statesman (Sept. 11, 2015),
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/crime--law/austin-travis-county-authorities-receive-money-
solve-rape-cases/Di2z1q9WlZNVsBYIkvuHEP/.
47
The one moldy item found within a rape kit turned out to be the underwear of a victim.
48
Tony Plohetski, City Memo: Mold found in containers of about 850 Austin police rape kits,
Statesman (June 27, 2017), https://www.statesman.com/news/local/city-memo-mold-found-
containers-about-850-austin-police-rape-kits/qEZ7rV5h3gnrcJPdJtMhjM/.
49
See id.
50
Sarah Marloff, APD Updates County on Moldy Rape Kits, The Austin Chronicle (July 6,
2017), https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2017-07-06/apd-updates-county-on-moldy-

9936648.5
128. Chief Manley also continued his predecessor’s approach to understaffing the
APD’s Sex Crimes Unit. Using the methodology adopted by the Police Research Executive
Forum (PERF) in the 2012 Austin Police Department Patrol Utilization Study, and applying it to
the prior years’ caseload, 57.5 investigators were needed to handle the sexual assault cases
reported to the APD in 2016. At that time—and still today—the APD had fewer than 20.
129. The systemic understaffing of the APD Sex Crimes Unit continues to date. Upon
information and belief, APD currently has approximately 15 detectives assigned to current sex
crimes, and roughly 1,000 new cases per year, for which more than 900 are female victims. In
contrast, APD has 12 detectives assigned to its homicide unit to handle the roughly 30 murders
that are committed annually. Upon information and belief, the gender of murder victims in
Travis County is not disproportionately female.
130. Things reached such a state of crisis in July 2017 that Emily LeBlanc and Dana
Nelson, the two co-chairs of the SARRT, sent a second letter to Mr. Jeffries and Mr. Arellano
regarding the rape kit backlog and systemic problems within both law enforcement and the DA’s
Office. The letter states:
[W]e are concerned that the attention on the backlog is missing or masking the
bigger problem. The backlog is only a symptom. The disease is a system that
condones rape and does not hold perpetrators, or itself, accountable. . . .
Cases that are prosecuted can take two to three years to be resolved and that was
before the APD lab closed last summer. The backlog that continues to grow as a
result of the ongoing DNA issues will make the time it takes to get through the
system even longer. Cases will be dismissed, victims will give up on a broken
system, and rapists will continue to walk free.
The recent issues with the DNA lab exacerbate the investigatory process even
further. The lack of transparency and urgency by APD are, quite frankly,
unacceptable. . . .
rape-kits/.

9936648.5
It is also time to be transparent about what is in the backlog. Each of the
thousands of kits waiting to be tested represent a survivor who was brave enough
not only to report, but to subject him or herself to an invasive examination just
hours after an unspeakable assault. Each kit represents a survivor’s hope for
justice and safety. . . .
[T]he backlog contains cases that were closed because victims were not believed,
were not supported, were told there was not reason to move forward, or were told
nothing at all. The backlog also contains cases that remain open or suspended
waiting for a suspect to be identified or a victim’s account to be corroborated. . . .
These are cases of victims who were discounted because of who they were, what
they wore, or how much they had to drink. These are cases of victims who have
been waiting for years for information about what is happening with their cases,
having never been informed that the cases were suspended or closed.
Perhaps most importantly, there are literally thousands of pieces of evidence that
could lead to the identification and prosecution of thousands of rapists, if properly
investigated and indicted. . . .”51
131. The letter was copied to Mayor Steve Adler, Judge Sarah Eckhardt, Council
Members Ora Houston, Delia Garza, Gregorio Casar, Sabino Rentaria, Ann Kitchen, Jimmy
Flannigan, Leslie Pool, Ellen Troxclair, Kathie Tovo, Alison Alter, Elaine Hart, Jeff Travillion,
Brigid Shea, Gerald Daugherty, Margaret Gomez, and the Commission for Women. Chief
Manley acknowledged receiving the letter the following day. But on information and belief,
significant changes have never been made.
132. In December 2017, the APD told the members of the Public Safety Commission
that the backlog of rape kits still numbered 856.52 At approximately the same time, DPS gave up
retraining four of six APD lab technicians, due to “significant challenges that impact confidence
51
A true and correct copy of the July 2017 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit D. See also Tony
Plohetski, Evidence Backlog: Austin ‘condones rape’ committee leaders charge, Statesman (July
13, 2017), https://www.statesman.com/news/evidence-backlog-austin-condones-rape-committee-
leaders-charge/jJL1Uo0fjDXygJj2bZ24NK/ (hereinafter “Evidence Backlog: Austin Condones
Rape”).
52
See Jack Craver, By outsourcing, APD has made major progress on sex assault kit backlog,
Austin Monitor (Dec. 12, 2017), https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2017/12/outsourcing-
apd-made-major-progress-sex-assault-kit-backlog/.

9936648.5
in the work product” of those employees.53 And on February 8, 2018, the SARRT received an
update regarding the rape kit backlog, which indicated that “1661 SAKs have completed testing,
1739 still out for testing, 789 remain in ‘backlog’ as of 1/25.”
133. Finally, on April 10, 2018, Chief Manley falsely announced that the APD’s rape
kits “are caught up and we are submitting the kits from current assaults as they come into the
department.”54 Just two days after Chief Manley declared the purported victory over the backlog
(which was itself untrue), the SARRT was informed by “Dr. Kadavy of APD forensic science
division” that “[u]rine in cups in kits had spilled.” APD implemented “a new system of vials,”
“reviewed all SAKs—approximately 4000[,]” and “found 30 with signs of leaking.”
134. The SARRT also published the results of its Community Needs Assessment
(“CNA”) in April of 2018.55 The CNA results confirmed systemic issues within the APD and
DA’s Office, including:
 Prosecutors interviewed for the CNA repeatedly raised the need for training on
prosecution strategies for sexual assault cases, particularly overcoming the
“consent defense.”56
 Systemic issues, like the length of the criminal justice process, were cited by
professionals as the most common reasons for victim attrition.57
 The second most common reason cited for victim attrition was “trauma and
revictimization”—by law enforcement and criminal justice practices and
professionals.58
53
Id.
54
Phil Prazan, With rape kit backlog cleared, APD says it’s now up to speed, KXAN (Apr. 10,
2018), https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/with-rape-kit-backlog-cleared-apd-says-its-now-
up-to-speed/1112118133.
55
See Exhibit A.
56
Id. at 33.
57
Id. at 38.
58
Id.

9936648.5
A civil attorney participating in an interview for the CNA remarked that “it seems like the entire
investigative process is a trial against the victim from day one. That’s why people don’t want to
come forward.”59
135. The CNA included several specific recommendations, including the
implementation of mandatory, agency-funded training on sexual assault dynamics, trauma-
informed responses, forensic exams, lab reports, and investigation/prosecution strategies for all
personnel investigating and prosecuting sexual assault. Other recommendations included that
law enforcement agencies should individually undertake annual or biannual sexual assault case
reviews to identify challenges, trends, and opportunities for process improvement and that
criminal case outcomes must be clearly documented and communicated to stakeholders,
including closure decisions. On information and belief, Chief Manley has not implemented any
of the recommendations to date.
136. Upon information and belief, during both Chief Acevedo’s and Chief Manley’s
tenure, numerous APD officers have been the subject of internal investigation(s) involving
graphic sexual images and pornography that was demeaning and harmful to female subjects.
The investigation resulted in a finding that various officers and APD management were involved,
but little disciplinary action was taken. Upon information and belief, the harmful and
pornographic images were shared via APD computer systems and email.
137. Upon information and belief, several sworn APD officers have also been accused
of sexual assault since the Federal Lawsuit was filed. Upon information and belief, none of these
officers was subject to prosecution. Further, none of these officers received an administrative
punishment consistent with the gravity of the crime they committed, even when the investigation
supported the accuser’s allegations. For example, on September 11, 2020, the Austin American-
59
Id. at 37.

9936648.5
Statesman reported that an APD officer who had resigned from the department on August 31,
2020, had been arrested for allegedly sexually assaulting a woman he met while responding to an
April 18, 2020 call regarding an attempted suicide. 60 The APD apparently knew about the
alleged assault as early as April 29, when the victim reported it.
138. Chief Manley also continued his predecessor’s policy of retaliating against
individuals who spoke up about the appalling treatment of sexual assault cases within APD. For
example, on information and belief, former APD Sergeant Elizabeth Donegan was fired from a
civil position as coordinator for a SAKI grant related to sexual assault response based on
suspicions that she had provided information for the Federal Lawsuit to Plaintiffs. Upon
information and belief, Plaintiff Senko, who served as a survivor consultant to the same grant
project, was dismissed from her role in the project as well, even though she is not a plaintiff in
the Federal Lawsuit. And after the Federal Lawsuit was filed, the APD refused to send sworn
personnel to participate in the SARRT, despite the fact that the coalition had been operating in
Travis County for decades.
139. As described previously, the SARRT had critiqued the APD’s handling of the
rape kit backlog and management of sexual assault cases. Rather than improve or take action in
response to the community concerns—which is the point of the group in the first place—APD
removed all managing personnel and officers from participation.
140. As described herein, every Named Plaintiff has personally interacted with, and
been harmed by, the APD while it has been under Chief Manley’s command.
(3) The APD’s Policies, Customs, and Practices
60
Hojun Choi, “Former police officer reportedly arrested in connection to sexual assault
investigation,” Austin American-Statesman (Sept. 11, 2020), available at
https://www.statesman.com/news/20200911/former-austin-police-officer-reportedly-arrested-in-
connection-to-sexual-assault-investigation

9936648.5
141. Given the history recounted above, it is disturbing, but unsurprising, that the
APD’s policies, customs, and practices regarding female sexual assault victims are
discriminatory. The breadth of those policies, customs, and practices is also systemic, as
evidenced by just a few examples.
142. First, upon reporting a rape to the APD, female sexual assault victims are
routinely subjected to adversarial questioning about very personal and intimate details of their
lives. Many questions are wholly irrelevant to the crime at hand. APD officers also frequently
use terms like “bad victim,” “unworthy,” and “not credible” in their investigative roles, even
with victims themselves. And although the APD employs victim services counselors, they are
not consistently present for detective interviews with sexual assault victims. In the CNA, one
detective explained the reasoning for not including counselors by noting that while policy
suggests the counselors should be present, he does not include them because “the victims need to
be able to handle the interview because the courts are worse.”
143. Upon information and belief, and as reflected by the Named Plaintiffs’
experiences with the APD, female victims of sexual assault are routinely asked by APD what
they were wearing at the time of the assault, why they were in a particular place at all, whether
they had been drinking, and/or whether they use drugs—implying that the victims bear
responsibility for the crimes committed against them. Likewise, female victims are routinely
questioned about their sexual history by APD, even where a different suspect or perpetrator has
been identified or a stranger is involved. Upon information and belief, no such questions are
routinely posed to victims of other types of violent assault.

9936648.5
144. For several years, the APD also routinely gave a “perjury statement” to female
rape victims, warning them of their obligation to tell the truth. Upon information and belief,
perjury statements were not routinely given to other crime victims.
145. Second, female victims who are raped by acquaintances or people with whom
they have had prior intimate contact are subjected to an even greater level of scrutiny by the
APD, as evidenced by the experiences of Ms. Senko, Ms. Degollado, and Ms. Day. Officers
frequently question the veracity of allegations when the victim knows or is friends with her
attacker, and suggest or imply that these assaults—which make up the majority of sexual assaults
generally—are somehow less criminal or “real” than those involving strangers. As described
below, this culture of dismissing an entire subset of criminal acts out of hand has also been
publicly ratified by the Current DA.
146. Third, despite research demonstrating that rape is a traumatic event and that
trauma impacts a victim’s ability to participate in an ongoing investigation and to remember
details of the event with clarity, APD officers ignore this information and routinely accuse
victims of being drunk, being complicit in their own assaults, being dishonest, and/or being
unwilling to assist on a case. Once a victim’s credibility is questioned, her likelihood of seeing
justice decreases substantially. Likewise, APD officers have simply stopped investigating cases
when victims have not returned calls from officers, even if only one or two messages have been
left.
147. Fourth, the APD has failed to engage in, and even rejected, trauma-informed
approaches to victim interactions. A trauma-informed sexual assault investigation acknowledges
that victims experience certain responses during and after the assault that make them especially
susceptible to victim-blaming. The trauma could result in the victim not being forthright, having

9936648.5
a fragmented memory, experiencing a lack of emotion, and/or delayed reporting. The trauma-
informed approach to sexual assault investigation changes the way officers respond and
investigate and most importantly, the way victims are interviewed. The use of such policies
increases the likelihood that victims will report the crime. In fact, a 2006 study found that rape
victims with victim-services advocates were 59% more likely to report their assaults to police.
148. Fifth, the APD has failed to provide training on even the most basic aspects of
handling sexual assault cases involving female victims. In fact, as reported in the CNA, 66% of
law enforcement officers handling sexual assault cases who were interviewed reported that they
had not received any training on how to read or interpret the results of a sexual assault forensic
exam.61 One hundred percent of law enforcement officers and prosecutors interviewed for that
study stated that there were no ongoing mandatory trainings related to their role in a sexual
assault case versus a different type of case.
149. Moreover, even when training is nominally offered, there is no expectation or
requirement that APD employees actually participate. For example, upon information and belief,
certain APD officers did travel to an out-of-town training related to sexual assault and trauma in
March 2016. Upon information and belief, grant funds were used to send officers to the training
and to pay for their hotel and meals while there. However, once there, the officers went
sightseeing rather than attending the conference. When the issue was raised to the officers’
supervisor at APD, he dismissed the complaint and indicated trips like that were one of the
“perks of the job.”
150. Sixth, the APD routinely uses mutually exclusive excuses to avoid investigating
sexual assault cases and/or presenting them for prosecution. In the event the perpetrator is a
61
One participant stated that he needed to know “How to read and interpret the diagrams and
language. I have to google stuff like ‘Labia Majora.’” Id. at 31.

9936648.5
stranger, APD officers rely on the inability to identify the attacker with DNA as a justification
for stalled investigations—while thousands of SAKs have sat untested for years. When a victim
does know her attacker, APD personnel will often suggest that it is too difficult to establish lack
of consent to justify additional investigation or prosecution. Thus, only a thin slice of sexual
assaults—those committed by strangers who can be identified by DNA (or in a few cases,
witness testimony)—are likely to survive the investigation process.
151. Seventh, upon information and belief, the APD prioritizes sexual assaults
committed against men over assaults perpetrated against women. While only 8-9% of sexual
assault victims are male, fully half of the handful of cases investigated and thereafter taken to
trial in the year leading up to the Federal Lawsuit involved male victims. The culture at the
APD supports the belief that a man would not willingly identify himself as a victim of sexual
assault unless it were true, while simultaneously focusing on purported “false reports” of women
and the possibility of implied consent where female victims are concerned—even when the
perpetrator is a stranger and violent.
152. Finally, the saga of the APD DNA Lab further confirms the APD’s systemic
disregard for female victims of sexual assault. Following the closure of its own lab in 2016, the
APD was forced to locate another lab to which it would “send” its SAKs and other DNA kits (for
other crimes) for testing in order to comply with Texas law. The Department of Public Safety
lab (the “DPS Lab”) that was ultimately chosen to receive APD’s evidence only agreed to test
evidence of any kind for roughly 30 cases per month. At that rate of testing and a backlog of
4,000 rape kits, it would have taken more than 10 years to get though the backlog, even if every
single case sent to DPS for testing was a sexual assault.

9936648.5
153. But the 30 cases per month limit imposed by DPS was for all cases, not just
sexual assaults, which meant that as new cases for other crimes came in, they were also sent to
DPS to be analyzed. Upon information and belief, the APD prioritized DNA kits related to other
crimes over SAKs.
154. Additionally, upon information and belief, many of the SAKs were not actually
sent to the DPS Lab at all, but were instead stored by the APD while being “submitted” to DPS
under the relevant paperwork—with actual transport and testing to occur at some unspecified
time in the future (or in many cases, not at all). For those SAKs that were physically provided to
the DPS Lab, the vast majority were simply stored and not tested with any urgency whatsoever
based on DPS’s capacity, a fact known to APD when it decided to send the evidence to DPS.
155. Additionally, the APD represented that the SAKs “submitted” to DPS were in the
queue to be tested, even while it understood that under the Policies in place and agreed to, most
of those kits would not be tested. The SAKs were simply being warehoused. But APD falsely
represented to victims, agencies working with sexual assault survivors, and the community that it
was rectifying issues related to the backlog of thousands of untested kits in its own APD DNA
Lab, while in reality no solution was in place at all—except on paper.
D. The Policies, Customs, and Practices of the Travis County District Attorney’s Office
Unconstitutionally Discriminate Against Female Victims of Sexual Assault
156. The current and immediately prior administrations within the Travis County
District Attorney’s Office have engaged in numerous discriminatory practices that failed to
protect female victims and women in Travis County generally from sexual predators. Further,
the explicit and implicit Policies of the Former DA and Current DA discriminate against female
victims of sexual assault and put other women in Travis County at risk. As with the Police
Chiefs, the culture of the DA’s Office flows from the top down.

9936648.5
(1) Former DA Rosemary Lehmberg
157. Defendant Rosemary Lehmberg became Travis County DA in January 2009 and
she remained the DA until January 3, 2017. During DA Lehmberg’s tenure, the DA’s Office
declined to proceed with two sexual assaults committed by serial rapist Saffa Bell against women
in Travis County. In December 2013, Saffa Bell sexually assaulted a woman after they met each
other through a dating website. The victim went to his home for dinner, and when she refused
his sexual advances and went to her car to leave, he grabbed her, dragged her back inside, and
raped her, and apparently recorded the assault. The woman positively identified Bell from a
photo array, but he was not arrested or prosecuted.
158. In July 2014, Saffa Bell sexually assaulted another woman in Travis County. The
victim grew sleepy after drinking a glass of wine that Bell had given her. When she woke, Bell
was gone, her underwear was missing, and a condom wrapper was on the floor. She had not
consented to having sex with anyone. The property manager of the residence thought it might be
Bell after hearing her description of the man. Bell evidently did maintenance work at the
property. The woman later identified Bell in a photo line-up, but he was not arrested or
prosecuted.
159. In 2015, Bell was finally arrested after he sexually assaulted a man in Travis
County, and he was ultimately prosecuted for that assault by the next DA in 2017.
160. During DA Lehmberg’s tenure, the DA’s Office processed very few cases of
sexual assaults involving female victims through the criminal justice system. On information
and belief, DA Lehmberg’s reluctance to proceed with cases of sexual assault against female
victims was because she was afraid such cases were not winnable. Indeed, at least one detective
who has worked with both the Former DA’s and Current DA’s administrations has said that DA

9936648.5
Lehmberg “required even more physical injury to be inflicted on rape victims than” DA Moore,
who according to the same detective, seemingly needs “severe physical harm” or video of the
rape to proceed. And according to data put forth by DA Moore, one one sexual assault case per
year was tried during most of DA Lehmberg’s tenure.
(2) Current DA Margaret Moore
161. On January 3, 2017, Defendant Margaret Moore became the Travis County
District Attorney. Prior to assuming her position, she reached out to community leaders who
worked with sexual assault survivors to determine which prosecutors in her new office were the
most knowledgeable and skilled at handling sexual assault cases. Upon information and belief,
after receiving similar lists from several people, Moore actively decided to “not retain” the
majority of the prosecutors who had been identified as the best by the sexual assault services
leaders in the community. Eighteen (18) prosecutors were “not retained” and purged from the
DA’s Office.
162. DA Moore’s own data also indicates that sexual assaults against women are not
seriously processed or pursued by the DA’s Office in general. Her 2017 Annual Report indicates
that during 2017, “a total of 9,279 cases resulted in either a conviction or a deferred
adjudication,”62 which breaks down as “7,676 cases where someone was finally convicted or
placed on community supervision as a probated sentence, and another 1,603 cases where the
defendant was placed on deferred adjudication and was required to serve a term of community
supervision.”63 In addition, the report states that the DA’s Office’s had “a total of 90 jury trials,”
62
Margaret Moore, District Attorney, Travis County District Attorney 2017 Annual Report,
available at https://www.traviscountytx.gov/images/district_attorney/docs/2017-da-annual-
report.pdf at 5.
63
Id.

9936648.5
none of which are identified as sexual assaults in the Chart of 2017 Jury Trials by Offense, and
none of which are identified as sexual assaults against adult female victims.64
163. The Chart does indicate that the DA’s Office conducted 13 murder trials in
2017.65 Chief Manley’s Monthly Citywide Reports for 2017 indicate that 838 rapes were
reported to APD in 2017, and 27 murders were reported to APD during the same time.
164. One sexual assault case was tried by the DA’s Office in 2017. In November
2017, DA Moore’s office tried Saffa Bell for sexually assaulting a male victim. The victim in
that case testified that he “got sleepy after drinking a margarita that Bell made for him at Bell’s
Lakeway home in September 2015. The man said he fell asleep and later woke up to find Bell
performing oral sex on him.” 66

At the time of the assault, the male victim had just moved to
Austin and had worked with Bell on a construction project.67
165. But Bell had been repeatedly accused of rape previously by women in Travis
County. As described above, at least two women reported being raped by him prior to his 2015
assault on his male victim. Despite these earlier, reported assaults on Travis County women in
2013 and 2014, Bell was not tried until he assaulted a male victim in a similar fashion in
September 2015.
166. DA Moore followed in DA Lehmberg’s footsteps with regard to Saffa Bell’s
female victims. Those cases were not pursued. Upon information and belief, the Former DA
64
Id.
65
According to the report, “[a]nother 39 bench trials occurred, with six of those being handled by
the trial division, four by the family violence section, two in child abuse and 27 by the civil
section.” None of them are identified as sexual assault cases involving an adult female victim.
Id.
66
See Katie Hall, Lakeway man found guilty of sex assault sentenced to life in prison, Austin
American Statesman (Nov. 16, 2017), https://www.mystatesman.com/news/crime--law/lakeway-
man-found-guilty-sex-assault-sentenced-life-prison/kulbdoeXSNfd16FEASmT9N/.
67
Id.

9936648.5
and Current DA did not pursue charges for Bell’s two assaults against his female victims in
Travis County simply because they were women, based on biases about women’s credibility.
167. Evidence for that conclusion can be seen in many statements made directly by the
Current DA. For example, on July 7, 2017, APD presented a “lab briefing” to Travis County
Commissioners, which was also attended by DA Moore and ADA Gregg Cox, the Director of
Operations for the DA’s Office. During the briefing, APD indicated that it intended to “resume
all remediation efforts to remove the apparent mold from the 849 backlogged rape kits currently
stored in the department’s East Austin warehouse.” 68 Although both DA Moore and Gregg Cox
insisted that the majority of those kits were not part of “prosecutable cases,” the DA’s Office
could not confirm exactly how many kits were part of active cases with survivors waiting on
DNA results.
168. At or near the same time, DA Moore was similarly quoted in the Austin
American-Statesman as saying, “The most important thing is [the mold] didn’t affect the
disposition of these cases. There’s a backlog, but that backlog is caused because these aren’t
high enough priority to be fed into the capacity we currently have. It’s only for informational
purposes; it’s not for prosecution.”69 To be clear, the remaining majority of rape kits in the
backlog that were not a “high enough priority” constitute hundreds of cases that were closed
without even testing the existing evidence or obtaining the DNA results.
169. On July 13, 2017, DA Moore also responded to the July 12, 2017 letter from Ms.
LeBlanc and Ms. Nelson. Part of her response to the alarm being sounded by the co-chairs of an
68
See Sarah Marloff, APD Updates County on Moldy Rape Kits, Austin Chronicle (July 6, 2017),
https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2017-07-06/apd-updates-county-on-moldy-rape-
kits/.
69
See Taylor Goldenstein, Officials: Expert ‘wasn’t alarmed’ by rape kits in boxes with mold,
Austin American-Statesman (July 6, 2017), https://www.mystatesman.com/news/local/officials-
expert-wasn-alarmed-rape-kits-boxes-with-mold/zFvDrI7vGk41hlJCHoOwcJ/.

9936648.5
organization focused on improving the response to sexual assaults in Travis County was to have
her delegate at the SARRT state that the DA’s office was “considering whether or not to
continue participating in SARRT.” Shortly thereafter, the DA’s Office ceased its regular
participation in the SARRT, initiated another “interagency group,” and steadfastly fought to
exclude subject matter experts who had been critical of the DA’s Office. Upon information and
belief, the DA’s new coalition has not publicly disclosed any findings or recommendations made
as a result of the partnerships forged.
170. Moreover, in response to the publication of the CNA conclusions, which directly
stated that employees in her Office did not feel that they were being adequately trained to handle
sexual assault cases, DA Moore continued to ignore the very real problems in her Office.
171. In fact, rather than address the issues at all, DA Moore instead provided altered
reporting numbers to create a better, but false, impression. On April 27, 2018, the Austin
American-Statesman posted an article in its online content titled “Travis County sex assault
cases yield few convictions, lack resources.” The article dealt with the release of the CNA, and
discussed the low rate of prosecution for sexual assaults in Travis County, as well as the fact that
more than 1,000 sexual assaults were reported in a one year period (according to data contained
in the CNA and derived from reporting required of APD and the DA for their grant funding from
the Office of Violence Against Women). The article was removed from the Statesman’s website
within several hours of publication, on information and belief, at DA Moore’s request.
172. On May 7, 2018, a similar article appeared in the Austin American-Statesman’s
print edition, but it contained different numbers and explanations offered by Defendants for the
reporting, which portrayed APD and the DA more favorably. This article suggested that the
number of reported sexual assaults in a one year period in Travis County was actually only 447.

9936648.5
However, Chief Manley’s Monthly Citywide Reports for 2017 indicate that 838 rapes were
reported just to the APD in 2017.
173. In May 2018, DA Moore attended a meeting of the Circle C Area Democrats,
where she responded to several questions about why the DA’s Office left the SARRT, the
processing of sexual assault cases, and how to achieve justice for victims. During that meeting,
DA Moore stated that non-consensual sexual “incidents” involving acquaintances of female
victims are really better characterized as “traumatic occurrences” that do not rise to the level of
sexual assault. DA Moore suggested that these assaults—which make up the majority of rapes
and sexual assaults in Travis County—are not criminal, and that the victims just need counseling
and medical services as opposed to the assistance of law enforcement.
174. During the same meeting, DA Moore stated her belief that rapes involving victims
who had consumed alcohol or drugs are generally not prosecutable as criminal acts, either.70
175. Yet, DA Moore’s stated public beliefs about acquaintance rapes or rapes
involving a victim that had been drinking seemingly apply only to female victims. Indeed, the
one case her Office took to trial in 2017 involved an assault by an acquaintance who worked
with the male victim, the victim admitted that he went to his assailant’s home, and the victim
admitted drinking alcohol with his assailant. Yet, the DA’s Office determined that case was, in
fact, a criminal assault, rather than merely a “traumatic incident.”

70
DA Moore’s stated beliefs that acquaintance rapes are not actually criminal and that assaults
on victims who have consumed alcohol or drugs cannot, or should not, be prosecuted as criminal
acts, reflect a general disinterest in processing or investigating sexual assault cases, which
overwhelmingly impacts the women of Travis County. Those beliefs also appear to be long-
held. During her time as an ADA from 1977 to 1980, Moore was re-assigned from the Trial
Section to Special Crimes. Moore was almost immediately unhappy with the new assignment
and complained to the DA Ronnie Earle, because the “cases” she had to deal with were “so far
outside of [her] range of knowledge and interest, that [she felt] hopelessly inadequate.” Among
the specific cases Moore mentions in describing her dissatisfaction in Special Crimes, was one in
which she “talked to a black rape victim because she was unhappy about the way her case was
being investigated.”

9936648.5
176. In short, DA Moore has made no meaningful progress during her tenure and her
own actions and statements, and those of her staff, make clear that discrimination against women
remains a significant problem. Assistant District Attorney Mindy Montford, for example, made
additional admissions of discriminatory conduct after the Federal Lawsuit was filed. In a phone
call to a family friend of one of the Federal Plaintiffs (a sexual assault survivor), Montford
falsely asserted that they could not prosecute the men who attacked the Plaintiff because the
Plaintiff had consented to sexual activity with the assailants (and purportedly admitted her
consent to law enforcement). Montford said this despite the fact that the police report, at all
times available to her and her office, demonstrated that in her conversations and interviews with
police, the woman had repeatedly said precisely the opposite.71
177. During the phone call in which Montford lied about the survivor/plaintiff, she also
told the caller that they couldn’t convince juries that women were telling the truth, saying “it’s
always the women” who create the obstacles to conviction. Her discriminatory beliefs and this
official policy of the DA’s Office catch sexual assault victims coming and going—Montford lied
about survivors to disparage their credibility and discourage them from pushing prosecutions,
and then criticizes and blames female jurors for being the reason she cannot get convictions. Of
course, all of this was simply based on Montford’s discriminatory beliefs (informed by the DA’s
Offices policies), because as noted herein, only four sexual assault trials had taken place in the
year or so prior to the phone call, which hardly provides a sample size from which to draw and
make any actual conclusions.
(3) The DAs’ Customs, Policies, and Practices
71
This phone call is the subject of a defamation action currently pending in the Western District
of Texas, Borchardt v. Montford, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00891-LY.

9936648.5
178. DA Moore’s dismissive and discriminatory remarks about female sexual assault
victims in Travis County are not simply words. They reflect the flawed and discriminatory
system over which she presides, and over which her predecessor presided. The systemic
discrimination inflicted upon female victims of sexual assault is pervasive.
179. For example, the DA’s Office “staffs” prosecutors to the APD’s investigations of
reported sexual assaults in order to guide that investigation. Upon information and belief, this
early intervention into the investigation process is unique to sexual assaults. It also has the effect
of providing the mechanism by which the “exceptional clearance” closure procedure can be
misused and abused in sexual assault cases. Because a prosecutor is assigned to the investigation
early and weighs in with respect to the APD’s investigation, usually with an indication or
direction that no further investigation is needed or warranted and that charges will not be filed,
the APD is then provided cover to exceptionally close the case, with a prosecution declined
notation, falsely representing to the victim and the community at large that it has “solved” a
sexual assault case. And since the DA’s Office never formally receives a referral of that case,
that Office is never forced to publicly refuse the referred case, which makes the DA’s Office
numbers on the percentage of sexual assault cases “accepted” for prosecution look higher than
they actually are. For the Defendants, this staffing conspiracy is win-win. APD gets to falsely
claim they are “solving” more cases than they actually are and the DA’s Office gets to falsely
claim that it prosecutes a higher percentage of cases than they actually do. 72 Of course, lost in
the middle are thousands of survivors and the community at large, where thousands of
perpetrators simply walk free.
Of 56 case referrals received between July and December 2017, only 23 were accepted by the
72
DA’s Office for prosecution.

9936648.5
180. Upon information and belief, when cases are referred to the DA, taken to the
grand jury and “true billed,” or approved for indictment, no one serves the warrants that are
issued or takes steps to locate and arrest the perpetrators. Essentially, for sexual assault cases,
after warrants are issued as a result of the grand jury’s findings, they do not go to APD or
constables to be served, and instead linger until the perpetrator is arrested for another crime.
181. Once assigned by the chief prosecutor of a particular court to an ADA to handle
the case, a sexual assault file may sit dormant for months or years without receiving any
attention or action by that prosecutor. There is no mechanism in place at the DA’s Office to
ensure sexual assault cases are not ignored for extended periods of time, or that they are actively
prosecuted at all.
182. Moreover, upon information and belief, only one prosecutor at the DA’s Office is
dedicated to sexual assault cases involving acquaintances of the victims (as opposed to stranger
rape). This prosecutor maintains a caseload of roughly 25 cases at any given time. Upon
information and belief, the DA’s Office has not tried any cases from this dedicated caseload
since the position was created, despite the fact that more than 70% of the sexual assaults reported
annually involve acquaintance attacks, or roughly 700 per year in Austin. Upon information and
belief, although there is only one such prosecutor, the DA’s Office refers to this single
prosecutor as “the unit.” Upon information and belief, this single prosecutor was also transferred
out of the position within the last year, following the filing of the Federal Lawsuit and the
revealing of many of the discriminatory policies and practices within the DA’s Office.
183. Upon information and belief, the general practice at the DA’s Office is to ignore
sexual assault cases in favor of others. Prosecutors prefer not to take them to trial because they
are perceived as harder to win than other types of cases. In fact, prosecutors interviewed during

9936648.5
the SARRT CNA repeatedly raised the need for training on prosecution strategies for sexual
assault cases, particularly overcoming the “consent defense.” The Former DA did not, and the
Current DA does not, provide this training. Adding insult to injury, the Current DA does offer
and conduct a seminar to others about how to prosecute a sexual assault case—it just does not
actually prosecute very many of those cases itself.
184. As reflected by the Named Plaintiffs’ experiences, the prosecutors who handle
sexual assault cases also routinely avoid talking with the victims at all unless absolutely
necessary, despite receiving calls and questions regularly from those victims, who are
predominantly women.
185. The Former DA and the Current DA have also prioritized sexual assaults
committed against men over assaults perpetrated on women. While less than 8% of sexual
assault victims are male, fully half of the handful of cases fully investigated and thereafter taken
to trial in the year prior to the Federal Lawsuit involved male victims. The culture at the DA’s
Office supports the belief that a man would not willingly identify himself as a victim of sexual
assault unless it were true, while simultaneously focusing on “false reports” and the possibility of
implied consent where female victims are concerned—even when the perpetrator is a stranger.
186. The DA’s Office frequently explains away the disproportionate number of
dismissals and its decision not to indict most sexual assault cases as the result of independent and
individualized decisions with regard to each particular case. However, upon information and
belief, the DA’s Office has no systematic approach to ensuring sexual assault cases are actually
investigate, processed, or prosecuted, no decision-making framework to ensure cases are treated
appropriately and that female sexual assault victims do not see their cases dismissed in greater
numbers as compared to other crimes (or compared to sexual assault cases involving male

9936648.5
victims), and no guidelines or requirements as to the timelines associated with sexual assault
cases, or the appropriate use of discretion for dismissal.
187. Prosecutors also routinely dismiss cases due to purported credibility issues, which
apparently only arise with female victims. Upon information and belief, the case of serial rapist
Saffa Bell, taken to trial in November 2017 (involving a male victim) was at least the fifth time
the rapist had attacked. At the trial, prosecutors were overheard discussing that they could not
take the other prior cases—all of which involved female victims—to trial because a jury would
not believe that women who knew the attacker did not consent. Prosecutors also regularly refer
to female victims as “unworthy” or “bad victims” during the criminal justice process.
188. Prosecutors also routinely inform female victims that they will not pursue cases
against their attackers because they cannot prove that the victim did not consent, despite that the
victims themselves would so testify, evidence of physical injuries often supports and/or
corroborates their testimony, and upon information and belief, sexual assault convictions in other
jurisdiction in Texas have been obtained and sustained on appeal even when a victim has
recanted.
E. Defendants Knew, or Should Have Known, Their Conduct and Policies are
Unconstitutional, Discriminatory, and Unfair to the Women of Travis County.
189. Historical data and information provided by Defendants themselves confirm the
existence of a number of the Policies that discriminate against women who are victims of sexual
assault in Travis County, and the harm caused by those Policies.
190. For example, the City of Austin’s own Human Rights Commission confirms
many of the facts alleged in this Complaint in its Board/Commission Recommendation Number
20180122-5(A) “Women’s Equity in Austin,” which was approved by a 9-0 vote on January 22,
2018. The Board/Commission Recommendation specifically notes that the failure to timely

9936648.5
process SAKs, “harms sexual assault victims and society at large in a variety of ways,” 73
including:
 Sexual assault victims may fear for their own and/or for other persons’
safety if their attacker remains unidentified or at large;
 Society is harmed because the failure to identify and prosecute those

rapists who are serial offenders logically results in the commission of
more crime than would have otherwise been the case had the authorities
completed rape kit analysis shortly following the time of the sexual
assault;
 Sexual assault victims who must wait for months and years on end to learn
the outcome of their rape kit processing may experience frustration, anger,
distrust, disillusionment, and a variety of negative personal feelings
towards law enforcement and government officials; and
 Members of society at large may experience similar feelings which could

potentially result in greater reluctance to come forward in cases of sexual
assault and/or to submit to rape kit evidence collection.74
191. The Policies implemented both explicitly and implicitly by the Defendants result
in the same consequences and more. The Policies have injured, and continue to injure, the
Named Plaintiffs and the Class by depriving them of their constitutional rights to equal
protection of the law, and to be free from gender discrimination by the state.
192. Similarly, during a 2017 presentation, the APD and the DA’s Office provided data
that confirms the remarkably low apprehension and prosecution rate in cases of sexual assault
against women. During the presentation, the APD and the DA’s Office gave a breakdown of 113
sexual assaults that were reported from January to March 2015. 75 Only 10 of the sexual assault
cases—or less than 9%—led to arrests, the data showed. Of the 103 remaining cases, in 49 of
73
Board/Commission Recommendation Number: 20180122-5(A) Women’s Equity in Austin,
Human Rights Commission, City of Austin (approved Jan. 22, 2018), at 13, attached hereto as
Exhibit E.
74
Id. at 14.
75
APD and the DA’s Office chose this three-month period to look at a sample of cases that had
spent some time in the criminal justice process.

9936648.5
them, the DA’s Office said it did not have enough evidence to make a case, in 40 cases the APD
suspended the case allegedly because the victims did not want to pursue the case, and 12 cases
were awaiting DNA evidence results. Of the ten (10) cases that led to arrest: four (4) of the cases
led to charges other than sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, criminal trespass, and
harassment; one (1) case was dismissed; one (1) case was still pending awaiting DNA evidence;
one (1) case was pending in court; one (1) perpetrator was sentenced to three years in prison; and
one (1) perpetrator took a plea deal and served 120 days in jail.
193. Moreover, upon information and belief, Defendants have manipulated reported
data regarding the number of investigations and case dispositions for public view following
criticism of their failings.
F. Named Plaintiffs and the Class have been Injured by Defendants.
194. At all times relevant hereto, Named Plaintiffs and the members of the Class have
been and are being continuously harmed by Defendants’ ongoing unconstitutional Policies
described above.
195. At all times relevant hereto on and on each day that passes, Named Plaintiffs and
the members of the Class sustain a new injury as a result of Defendants’ unconstitutional Policies
and conduct described above.
196. Named Plaintiffs and the members of the Class have suffered emotional distress
and psychological damage as a result of Defendants’ ongoing conduct.
G. Limitations are Tolled in this Case.

9936648.5
197. The facts related to Defendants’ Policies and conduct that impacted and
discriminated against Named Plaintiffs and the Class were fraudulently concealed from and/or
inherently undiscoverable to Named Plaintiffs and the Class.
198. Thus, the discovery rule, fraudulent concealment, and equitable tolling principles
apply to any applicable limitations period.
199. Separately, and in addition, due to the COVID-19 global pandemic, the Texas
Supreme Court issued its Twenty-First Emergency Order Regarding the COVID-19 State of
Disaster, which ordered that “[a]ny deadline for the filing or service of any civil case that falls on
a day between March 13, 2020 and September 1, 2020 is extended until September 15, 2020.”
VI. CLASS ALLEGATIONS
200. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42, Named Plaintiffs bring this class
action on behalf of themselves and the Class.
201. The exact number of members of the Class is not presently known, but upon
information and belief, the Class includes more than eleven-thousand (11,000) women.
Therefore, under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(1), the Class are so numerous that joinder
of individual members in this action is impracticable. All members of the Class are known or
knowable to Defendants because they all reported the sexual assaults they suffered to law
enforcement.
202. There are common questions of law and fact in the action that relate to and affect
the rights of each member of the Class that will generate common answers that will drive
resolution of this action. Further, the relief sought is common to the entire Class, as all members
of the Class are victims of Defendants’ unconstitutional conduct. Accordingly, pursuant to Texas
Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2), there are questions of law and fact common to the Class.

9936648.5
203. Named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the Class they represent pursuant to Texas
Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(3) because Named Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violated the
rights held by the Class under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
Texas Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and state law. There is no conflict
between Plaintiffs and any other Putative Class Members with respect to this action.
204. Named Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Class pursuant to Texas Rule
of Civil Procedure 42(a)(4). The interests of the Named Plaintiffs do not conflict with the
interests of the Class that they seek to represent, and Named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately
represent the Class. Moreover, Named Plaintiffs intend to prosecute this action vigorously.
Therefore, Named Plaintiffs should be appointed representatives of the Class.
205. This action is properly maintainable as a class action pursuant to Texas Rule of
Civil Procedure 42(b)(1)(A) or 23(b)(1)(B) because the prosecution of separate actions by
individual members of the Class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with
respect to individual members of the Class that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the
interests of other Class members not party to the adjudication, or would substantially impair or
impede the ability of other Class members to protect their interests, or would establish
incompatible standards of conduct and results for Defendants.
206. This action is properly maintainable as a class action under Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 42(b)(2) because Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally
applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief and/or corresponding
declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole.
207. This action is properly maintainable as a class action under Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 42(b)(3) because questions of law and fact common to the Class predominate over

9936648.5
individual questions for the members of the Class, and a class action is superior to other
available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this case.
208. The questions of law or fact common to the Class include:
a. Whether the Policies were implemented by each of the Defendants;
b. Whether Defendants’ actions, patterns of behavior, history of decision-

making, and departures from normal procedures in the treatment of
female victims of sexual assault evidence ongoing, intentional
discrimination against the Class on the basis of gender;
c. Whether the Defendants’ Policies constitute policies or customs that

violated constitutionally protected rights of the Class under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983;
d. Whether the Defendants implemented the Policies with deliberate

indifference to the civil and constitutional rights of the Class; and
e. Whether the Defendants’ Policies violate the Texas Constitution.
209. This action is superior to any other available means for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy, and no unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the
management of this class action. The class action presents far fewer management difficulties
and provides the benefits of a single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive
supervision by a single court.
210. Named Plaintiffs have retained counsel for themselves and the Class that are
experienced and capable in the field of constitutional law and class action litigation and have
been recognized as knowledgeable, capable counsel who have carried out their duties.
VII. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT 1: Violations of Equal Protection – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (By All Plaintiffs against
All Defendants)
211. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
212. At all relevant times herein, Defendants acted under color of law.

9936648.5
213. At all relevant times herein, Defendants followed written and/or unwritten
Policies, and thus afforded less protection to female victims of sexual assault than to victims of
other crimes, including the Named Plaintiffs and members of the Class.
214. As described more fully above, Defendants have policies, practices, and/or
customs that:
a. Refuse to implement and/or ignore proper training and supervision of government

employees handling the investigation of sexual assault cases;
b. Allocate significantly more resources to other violent crimes than to sexual

assaults against female victims;
c. Fail to submit and/or timely test Sexual Assault Kits (“SAKs”) and/or submit the
results to CODIS;
d. Prioritize the submission or testing of DNA evidence from other violent crimes
over SAKs;
e. Purposely and/or knowingly use or contract with labs that do not have the
capacity to timely and accurately test and/or analyze SAKs;
f. Purposely and/or knowingly use labs with known contamination and competency
problems for the testing and/or analyzing of SAKs;
g. Ignore or refuse to use SAK results to investigate or prevent additional rapes and
sexual assaults;
h. Knowingly omit from communications with victims of sexual assault that it is

unlikely their SAK will be timely tested and that an investigation will not be
completed in the absence of those results;
i. Fail to arrest known perpetrators of sexual assault against female victims;
j. Disproportionately refuse to investigate or proceed with sexual assault cases when

the victim is female;
k. Traumatize female victims of sexual assault in the course of their interactions

with Defendants by, among other things, refusing to treat their testimony as
adequate evidence regarding lack of consent;

9936648.5
l. Traumatize female victims of sexual assault in the course of their interactions
with Defendants by, among other things, refusing to treat their physical and/or
emotional injuries as adequate evidence corroborating lack of consent;
m. Over-emphasize or focus on unfounded professed concerns about lack of DNA or

credibility, when such concerns are not applied to: (i) other violent crimes, like
robbery, non-sexual assault, and homicide; or (ii) sexual assaults committed
against male victims;
n. Intentionally and/or knowingly subject women to invasive collection of bodily

tissues and/or DNA with actual or constructive knowledge that such evidence will
not be used to investigate or arrest their attackers;
o. Subject female victims and other women to future assaults by known perpetrators
by failing to act on, investigate, or prosecute prior sexual assaults against women;
p. Disproportionately refuse to investigate, process, or prosecute cases involving

sexual assault against female victims without DNA evidence;
q. Disproportionately refuse to investigate, process, or prosecute cases involving

sexual assault against female victims without physical injuries;
r. Treat sexual assault cases involving female victims with less urgency and
importance than is afforded to other types of violent crimes;
s. Inadequately staff, train, or supervise the investigation, processing, and

prosecution of sexual assault cases involving female victims; and
a. Treat female victims of sexual assault with less respect and devote less attention
to their cases than to cases involving male victims, as applied to both sexual
assaults and other violent crimes
215. The injuries to the Named Plaintiffs and the Class are the result of the
unconstitutional Policies.
216. Defendants acted with a discriminatory motive in pursuing the Policies.
217. In addition, Named Plaintiffs and the Class assert a claim of class-based
discrimination based on sex.
218. Defendants have established Policies that provide less protection to female rape
victims than to other victims of assault.

9936648.5
219. Defendants’ Policies are sex and gender-based and their adverse effects reflect
invidious sex and gender-based discrimination.
220. Defendants’ Policies, which discriminate against victims of sexual assault,
adversely affect women.
221. Defendants’ Policies have both an adverse impact and a discriminatory purpose.
222. Defendants, with deliberate indifference, failed to train their officers, prosecutors,
and employees as to the rights of female victims of rape and/or sexual assault, including but not
limited to, the Named Plaintiffs and the Class.
223. Defendants’ deliberate indifference, and willful and wanton conduct created a
danger of an increased risk of harm of sexual abuse of females, and/or fostered an environment
in which female victims are sexually abused and/or in fear of sexual assault.
224. Defendants’ deliberate indifference and willful and wanton conduct created a
danger of an increased risk of harm to female victims of sexual abuse, by failing to investigate
rape and/or sexual assault crimes.
225. Defendants’ deliberate indifference, and willful and wanton conduct created a
danger of an increased risk of harm to female victims of sexual abuse, by fostering an
environment whereby the perpetrators of sexual assault were allowed to continue to prey on
victims without fear of investigation by the police.
226. At all relevant times hereto, Defendants treated the Named Plaintiffs and the
members of the Class disparately as compared to similarly situated adult males.
227. Defendants’ conduct was motivated by the sex of the Named Plaintiffs and the
sex of the members of the Class.
228. Defendants’ Policies targeted females.

9936648.5
229. Defendants’ Policies have no rational basis and do not bear a substantial
relationship to an important governmental objective.
230. Defendants’ conduct was intentional and due to the female sex of the Named
Plaintiffs and the female sex of the members of the Class and each of the Subclasses.
231. Defendants have a history of discriminating against females.
232. At all relevant times hereto, the victims from whom the Defendants obtained the
evidence contained in SAKs are overwhelmingly female.
233. At all relevant times hereto, the victims of crimes of non-sexual assault, robbery,
and homicide subject to the jurisdiction of the Defendants include many more men.
234. Defendants use their monetary resources to investigate and process and test
evidence in crimes involving non-sexual assault, robbery, and homicide, but did not and do not
properly use their resources to investigate, process, test, and prosecute evidence in crimes
involving sexual assault against women. Defendants had, and have, a policy of selective
enforcement deliberately based upon the unjustifiable standard of gender.
235. Defendants, instead of using their monetary resources to test the SAKs submitted
by women, chose over the years to use their monetary resources to purchase storage space/bins
for the SAKs and to simply warehouse them without notice to the female victims.
236. At all relevant times hereto, Defendants did not submit the SAKs for testing
because of the victims’ sex.
237. At all relevant times hereto, Defendants provided government services to male
victims of crimes but provided barely adequate or inadequate government services to female
victims of sexual assault, affording a lower standard of service to women.

9936648.5
238. Defendants violated the civil rights of the Named Plaintiffs and the members of
the Class by: (1) having express Policies that, when enforced, caused a constitutional deprivation
to the Named Plaintiffs and the members of the Class; or (2) having a widespread practice and/or
custom that, although not authorized by written law or express municipal policy, was so
permanent and well-settled as to constitute usage with the force of law.
239. The constitutional injury inflicted by Defendants was caused by persons with final
policymaking authority for Defendants.
240. Defendants knew about the described conduct and facilitated it, approved it,
condoned it, and/or turned a blind eye to it.
241. Named Plaintiffs and the members of the Class are entitled to compensatory
damages and other non-pecuniary losses.
242. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Named Plaintiffs and the
members of the Class suffered deprivation of their constitutional rights.
COUNT 2: Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights – 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (By All Plaintiffs
against All Defendants)
244. As to each of the above causes of action, by the facts set out herein, Defendants,
in whole or part, conspired with each other to (a) deprive, either directly or indirectly, the Named
Plaintiffs and all members of the Class, of the equal protection of the laws; or (b) hinder others
from giving or securing equal protection of law to all persons in violation of 42 U.S.C. §
1985(3).
245. The Defendants are comprised of the City of Austin, Travis County, Travis
County District Attorney Margaret Moore, former Travis County District Attorney Rosemary
Lehmberg, Austin Police Chief Brian Manley, and former Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo.

9936648.5
These individuals and entities conspired (a) across separate departments within the City of
Austin (which is a large entity with numerous branches and departments that operate
independently from one another) and (b) between the City Defendants and the Travis County
Defendants to deprive the Named Plaintiffs and all members of the Class of the equal protection
of the laws or to hinder others from giving or securing equal protection of law to all persons.
246. As a result of Defendants’ actions in furtherance of their conspiracy, the Named
Plaintiffs and all members of the Class have been injured in their person and/or property.
COUNT 3: Violations of Tex. Const. art. I, § 30 and Request for Declaratory Judgment
(By All Plaintiffs against All Defendants)
248. The Texas Constitution protects the rights of crime victims.
249. Specifically in all cases, the rights of crime victims include the right to be treated
with fairness and respect for the victim’s privacy and dignity.
250. Defendants have violated the rights of the Named Plaintiffs, and the Class
members, to be treated with fairness, respect, and dignity, by among other things:
a. Subjecting them to demeaning and humiliating interrogation tactics, including

questioning their alcohol consumption, sexual habits, and clothing;
b. Routinely and inappropriately impugning the credibility of female sexual assault

victims;
c. Conducting invasive and traumatic physical searches, with no intention to use the
evidence collected in a timely and/or appropriate manner;
d. Telling female sexual assault victims that the crimes perpetrated against the are
not actually criminal;
e. Making crass and offensive remarks about female victims of rape and domestic
violence;
f. Referring to female victims of sexual assault as “bad,” or “unworthy” victims;
g. Routinely refusing to communicate with female victims of sexual assault;

9936648.5
h. Treating female victims of sexual assault like suspects, rather than victims; and
i. Failing to provide updates regarding the progression of claims, often for months
or years at a time.
251. Pursuant to the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, Plaintiffs seek a
declaration regarding their rights and status under the Texas Constitution and a declaration that
Defendants’ Policies violate Texas law.
VIII. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT
253. Plaintiffs also pray that the Court issue a permanent injunction against Defendants
ordering them to:
a. Properly train and supervise government employees handling sexual assault cases
or evidence;
b. Require and enforce trauma-informed approaches to investigation and processing

of sexual assault cases;
c. Submit, test, and analyze all SAKs obtained by (or sent to) law enforcement
offices in a timely manner;
d. Inform victims of sexual assault of the likelihood and timing of their SAKs being
tested;
e. Treat sexual assault cases with the same urgency and importance afforded to other
types of crimes;
f. Provide adequate staffing for investigation and processing of sexual assault cases;
g. Treat female victims of sexual assault with the same respect and attention to their
cases as male victims, both of sexual assaults and other crimes; and
h. Accurately and publicly report data reflecting the number of sexual assaults
reported, investigated, and processed to conclusion within the criminal justice
system on a bi-annual basis.

9936648.5
254. Without the intervention of this Court, Named Plaintiffs and the Class cannot
prevent Defendants from continuing their violations of the law.
255. Named Plaintiffs and the Class request that the court appoint a monitor or Special
Master to ensure that required changes are reviewed, approved, and implemented.
IX. JURY DEMAND
256. Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 216
on all issues so triable and tender the appropriate fee.
X. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
257. All conditions precedent to Plaintiffs’ claims for relief have been performed or
have occurred.
XI. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
258. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiffs request that the
Defendants disclose, within fifty (50) days of the service of this request, all of the information or
material described in Rule 194.2 (a)-(l).
XII. PUNITIVE DAMAGES
259. All of the acts committed by Defendants described herein for which liability is
claimed were done intentionally, unlawfully, maliciously, wantonly, and/or recklessly, and said
acts meet the standards required for the imposition of punitive damages.
XIII. ATTORNEYS’ FEES
260. Named Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to recover their reasonable and
necessary attorneys’ fees and costs for their claims against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1988 and Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 37.009.
XIV. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

9936648.5
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Named Plaintiffs and the Class respectfully
request and pray for the following:
a. Judgment finding Defendants jointly and severally liable for monetary damages;
b. Judgment awarding Named Plaintiffs and the Class the costs of this action;
c. Judgment awarding Named Plaintiffs and the Class their attorneys’ fees pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, § 37.009 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code,
and any other applicable law;
d. Judgment awarding Named Plaintiffs and the Class pre- and post-judgment
interest as allowed by law;
e. Declaratory judgment and injunctive relief; and
f. All other relief, in law or in equity, to which Named Plaintiffs and the Class show
themselves entitled.
DATED: September 14, 2020.

9936648.5
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Jennifer R. Ecklund

Jennifer R. Ecklund
Texas Bar No. 24045626
jecklund@thompsoncoburn.com
Elizabeth G. Myers
emyers@thompsoncoburn.com
John P. Atkins
jatkins@thompsoncoburn.com
Mackenzie M. Salenger
msalenger@thompsoncoburn.com
THOMPSON COBURN LLP

1919 McKinney Avenue, Suite 100
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: 972/629-7100
Facsimile: 972/629-7171
Kristen E. Sanocki
Pro Hac Vice Forthcoming
Illinois State Bar No. 6319471
Missouri State Bar No. 67375
ksanocki@thompsoncoburn.com
THOMPSON COBURN LLP

One US Bank Plaza
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
Telephone: 314/552.6000
Facsimile: 314/552.7000
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

9936648.5

Senko, Et Al v. City of Austin, Et Al - Original Petition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Senko, Et Al v. City of Austin, Et Al - Original Petition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CAUSE NO.

HANNA SENKO, AMANDA DAY, §

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

“Defendants”) and respectfully state the following:

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION PETITION – PAGE 1

and equal protection of the law.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION PETITION – PAGE 2

Association put it in an official social media post from September 5, 2020:

There are only 19 sex crimes detectives at APD.

That number completely ignores the thousands of other sexually-

That number completely ignores those thousands of backlogged forensic

A similar lawsuit filed in 2018 by eight other Survivor/Plaintiffs (the “Federal

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION PETITION – PAGE 3

Plaintiffs had an adequate option to be heard in state court.

Defendants have committed constitutional violations by implementing, promoting, or

maintaining policies, practices, and/or customs that:

a. Refuse to implement and/or ignore proper training and supervision of government

b. Allocate significantly more resources to other violent crimes than to sexual

h. Knowingly omit from communications with victims of sexual assault that it is

i. Fail to arrest known perpetrators of sexual assault against female victims;

j. Disproportionately refuse to investigate or proceed with sexual assault cases when

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION PETITION – PAGE 4

l. Traumatize female victims of sexual assault in the course of their interactions

m. Over-emphasize or focus on unfounded professed concerns about lack of DNA or

n. Intentionally and/or knowingly subject women to invasive collection of bodily

p. Disproportionately refuse to investigate, process, or prosecute cases involving

q. Disproportionately refuse to investigate, process, or prosecute cases involving

s. Inadequately staff, train, or supervise the investigation, processing, and

Defendants’ unconstitutional and discriminatory conduct subjects female victims of sexual

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION PETITION – PAGE 5

law; and an award of damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.

II. DISCOVERY PLAN

action under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.4.

2. Named Plaintiff (and Putative Class Representative) Hanna Senko is an adult

through the undersigned counsel.

3. Named Plaintiff (and Putative Class Representative) Amanda Day is an adult

through the undersigned counsel.

4. Named Plaintiff (and Putative Class Representative) Whitley Degollado is an

through the undersigned counsel.

5. Named Plaintiff (and Putative Class Representative) Jessica Ragsdill is an adult

through the undersigned counsel.

6. Defendant City of Austin is a municipal entity located in Travis County, Texas,

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION PETITION – PAGE 6

Suite 1.700, Austin, Texas 78701.

8. Defendant former Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg (the

IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION PETITION – PAGE 7

Constitution and Texas Government Code §§ 24.007 and 24.008.

events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in Travis County.

V. FACTS OF THE CASE

A. Each of the Named Plaintiffs was Personally Subjected to Unconstitutional,

(1) Named Plaintiff Hanna Senko

Ms. Senko left his home.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION PETITION – PAGE 8

tucked under the pillow on which she had been sleeping.

I was wasted as well. I don’t appreciate this.”

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION PETITION – PAGE 9

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION PETITION – PAGE 10

took 185 days to receive her final toxicology report.

delineated later herein.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION PETITION – PAGE 11

enough information to establish a crime had been committed against her.

more sexual assault cases than they actually do.