IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION
§
§
JANE DOE,
§
Plaintiff, C.A. NO. 4:20-CV-00968
§
§
vs. JUDGE LYNN N. HUGHES
§
§
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
§
TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY PETER J. BRAY
§
Defendants.
§
§ EMERGENCY MOTION
§

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 65 and TEX. R. CIV. P. 682, Plaintiff, Jane Doe hereby respectfully moves the

Court for entry of an emergency Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) enjoining the Defendant’s from engaging

in the unconstitutional and illicit activities contained in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint pending

consideration by the Court of Plaintiff’s Application for Preliminary Injunctive Relief.

In support of this Motion, Plaintiff relies upon her First Amended Complaint, to be filed upon the Court’s

granting and Plaintiff’s sworn Affidavit. (See Exhibit A). filed contemporaneously with this Motion.

I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Plaintiff genuinely loves school, and as a first-generation college student it is Plaintiff’s dream to become

a Computer Scientist. For the past 8 years Plaintiff dedicated her life to vigorously pursuing her postsecondary

education. While participating in the Defendants educational programs, implemented for the advancement of

underrepresented minorities like Plaintiff, Plaintiff endured nefarious accounts of discrimination on the basis of

protected classes, speech and ultimately for opposing the Defendant’s institutionalized segregation and racism,

neglecting academic programs and fraudulently acquiring Federal funding contingent upon compliance with

Federal laws mandating the prohibition of discrimination, that are instead misallocated and embezzled. Plaintiff

is a conduit for truth, transparency and equality and respectfully moves to Court for relief from the causes herein.

C.A. NO. 4:20-CV-00968 Page 1 of 8 Doe vs. NSF et al.,

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 II. APPLICATION PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

By means of this motion, Plaintiffs seeks immediate relief for the Defendant’s violating Plaintiff’s Federal

civil, consumer and constitutional rights and tarnishing Plaintiff’s academic record for resisting the same. A

Temporary Restraining Order is pertinent to preserve the status quo of desegregated Federally funded U.S.

postsecondary educational programs and equal access to public accommodation.

There are four prerequisites for the extraordinary relief of Preliminary Injunctive Relief or Temporary

Restraining Order (“TRO”). A Court may grant such relief only when the movant establishes that:

(1) there is a substantial likelihood that the movant will prevail on the merits;

There is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiff will prevail as Plaintiff’s sworn Affidavit in Support
of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief and Amended Complaint includes claims of
egregiously discriminatory, deceptive and racist conduct committed by the Defendant’s that
violates Plaintiff’s consumer, Federal civil and constitutional rights. These claims are too
substantiated with images and transcribed audio recordings that corroborates Plaintiff’s claims.

Further, the evidence and testimony that Plaintiff will present at the hearing on its Motion for a
Preliminary Injunctive Relief will establish and meet all criterial elements required for the Court
to grant such relief.

(2) there is a substantial threat that irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted;

Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm to her academic record, personal reputation and physical
and mental health by virtue of the Defendant’s negligent unconstitutional operations, incompliance
with institutional policies and procedures and violations of Federal civil rights statutes.

That irreparable harm is ongoing and will continue to adversely affect Plaintiff’s mental state,
well-being and ability to equally access Federally funded programs and public accommodations.
Further, despite having endured these unfortunate events, Plaintiff seeks and intends to continue
her postsecondary education to obtain her baccalaureate in Computer Science.

The Defendant’s adverse actions annihilated Plaintiff’s academic record therefore making
transferring to another institution impossible. As a result, Plaintiff’s only option is to re-enroll in
the Defendant’s Federally funded educational programs in order to obtain her degree. With the
Court’s permittance of such Preliminary Injunctive Relief, Plaintiff fully intends on doing so.

Thus, the Defendant’s actions and unlawful sanctions can be remedied only by immediate relief
from this Court, by means of granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.
Further, Plaintiff would have no adequate remedy at law, and this Court’s ability to fashion
effective relief would be significantly impaired if the Defendants are not enjoined but are found,
after trial, to be guilty of deceptively and discriminatively administering Federally funded
programs and public accommodations.

C.A. NO. 4:20-CV-00968 Page 2 of 8 Doe vs. NSF et al.,

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 (3) the threatened injury [to the movant] outweighs the threatened harm to the Defendant; and

Plaintiff was undeniably denied equal access to public accommodations and participation and
benefits of Federally funded programs due to the fact that Plaintiff was a disabled African
American female whom had engaged in protected speech.

Notwithstanding Plaintiff, and other similar suited persons having commenced civil actions
charging the Defendant, Texas Southern University, Texas Southern has continued to operate with
disregard to the following consumer protections laws and anti-discrimination statues.

1. DTPA, TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.12. and § 17.41. et seq.:

a. Disseminating false facts, statements and advertisements as to the quality of academic

programs, professionalism of employees and compliance with mandated local, State,
Federal and constitutional laws and institutional procedures and policies;

2. TITLE IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., | 34 C.F.R. § 106:

a. Neglecting to employ a designated Title IX Coordinator;

b. Neglecting to adopt compliant Title IX policies and procedures;
c. Excluding Plaintiff from accessing Federally funded programs on the basis of sex;
d. Denying Plaintiff benefits of Federally funded programs on the basis of sex;

3. TITLE II, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., | 28 C.F.R. Part 35:

a. Neglecting to employ a designated ADA Coordinator;

b. Neglecting to adopt compliant Title II policies and procedures;
c. Neglecting to alleviate architectural barriers restricting disabled/handicap persons from
access programs, buildings and campus infrastructure.;
d. Denying Plaintiff equal access to public accommodations on the basis of disability;

4. SECTION 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794., | 34 C.F.R. § 104:

a. Excluding Plaintiff from participation in Federal funded programs and activities on the
basis of disability;
b. Denying Plaintiff benefits of Federally funded programs on the basis of disability;

5. TITLE VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(d) et seq., | 34 C.F.R. Part 100:

a. Excluding Plaintiff from accessing Federal funded programs and activities on the basis
of race, color and national origin;
b. Denying Plaintiff benefits of Federally funded programs on the basis of race, color and
national origin;

6. TITLE II, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(a) et seq.:

a. Subjecting Plaintiff to discrimination within public accommodation on the basis of

race, color and national origin;

C.A. NO. 4:20-CV-00968 Page 3 of 8 Doe vs. NSF et al.,

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 b. Denying Plaintiff equal access to public accommodations on the basis of race, color
and national origin;

7. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq.:

a. Subjecting Plaintiff to discrimination under Color of Law on the basis of Plaintiff’s

race, color, national origin, disability, sex and for resisting the same;
b. Denying Plaintiff benefits and full and equal enjoyment of the rights, protections and
privileges of antidiscrimination statutes and Federally funded programs;

8. The National Science Foundation’s implementing regulations:

a. 45 C.F.R. § 618 – TITLE IX OF THE EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972;

b. 45 C.F.R. § 605 – SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973;
c. 45 C.F.R. § 611 – TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964;

(4) the granting of the Preliminary Injunctive Relief will not disserve the public interest.1

It is in the interest of the public for taxpayer funded institutions, such as Texas Southern University
and Federal funders, such as the National Science Foundation to operate incompliance with, and
adhere to local, State, Federal, constitutional and consumer laws.

Enjoining the Defendants from further engaging in discriminatory practices and illicit activities would
not only redress the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights, but of all participants of the Defendant’s public
accommodations and Federally funded programs that these Federal laws seek to protect.

III. FACTS SUPPORTING REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

The grounds for Plaintiff’s motion are as follows:

1. DTPA, TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.12 and § 17.41 et seq.;

DTPA provides relief for consumers providing that “[a] consumer may maintain an action where” “the
use or employment by any person of a false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice that is relied on
by a consumer to the consumer’s detriment”2 and “any unconscionable action or course of action by
any person” that constitute a producing cause of economic damages or damages for mental anguish.”3

DTPA further provides “In a suit filed under this section, each consumer who prevails may obtain”
“an order enjoining such acts or failure to act”4 and “any other relief which the court deems proper…”5.

2. TITLE IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., | 34 C.F.R. § 106;

1
Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987).
See also: Canal Auth. of the State of Florida v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572 (5th Cir. 1974) (en banc).
2
See: DTPA, TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.50.(1)(B).
3
See: DTPA, TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.50.(3).
4
See: DTPA, TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.50.(b)(2).
5
See: DTPA, TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.50.(b)(4).

C.A. NO. 4:20-CV-00968 Page 4 of 8 Doe vs. NSF et al.,

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”) provides an avenue of legal relief for
victims of sex-based discrimination committed within Federally funded educational institutions and
programs.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Title IX statue to contain an implied right of action allowing
aggrieved individuals to bring suit in Federal Court for monetary damages and injunctive relief.6

3. TITLE II, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., | 28 C.F.R. Part 35;

Title II provides “[a]ny person who is being subjected to discrimination on the basis of a disability”
may petition “a civil action for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary
injunction, restraining order, or other order.”7 The Court with jurisdiction of such injunction, may
appoint the aggrieved person an Attorney.8

4. TITLE II, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(a) et seq.;

Section 2049 of Title II expressly provides that any aggrieved person may file a private right of action
to secure temporary or permanent injunctive relief enjoining the unlawful conduct, activities and
courses of action.10 A plaintiff who prevails on a claim pursuant to Title II of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 “cannot recover damages,”11 but a Court “may deem just” to appoint an Attorney for such
complainant.12

IV. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 65, other applicable laws and the Court’s own equitable powers,

Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant Plaintiff’s Temporary Restraining Order that stipulates the

Defendant’s to comply with the following orders:

A. Defendant, Texas Southern University (“TSU”) must comply with the following:

a. Reverse Plaintiff’s administrative withdrawal in the Spring 2019 term;

b. Re-instate Plaintiff’s enrollment in the 12 credit hours Plaintiff registered for Spring 2019;
c. Grant Plaintiff permission to complete these via distance education | self-paced;

6
Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 691 (1979); See also: Franklin v. Gwinnett Cty. Pub. Schs., 503 U.S. 60, 73 (1992).
7
42 U.S.C. § 36.501(a); (“Any person who is being subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the Act or this
part or who has reasonable grounds for believing that such person is about to be subjected to discrimination in violation of section 303
of the Act or subpart D of this part may institute a civil action for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary
injunction, restraining order, or other order. Upon timely application, the court may, in its discretion, permit the Attorney General to
intervene in the civil action if the Attorney General or his or her designee certifies that the case is of general public importance.”)
8
Ibid. (“Upon application by the complainant and in such circumstances as the Court may deem just, the court may appoint an Attorney
for such complainant and may authorize the commencement of the civil action without the payment of fees, costs, or security.”).
9
42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3(a).
10
Id. § 2000a-3(a) (“Whenever any person has engaged or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in
any act or practice prohibited by section 2000a–2 of this title, a civil action for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent
or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order, may be instituted by the person aggrieved”).
11
Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402 (1968).
12
42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3(a) (“Upon application by the complainant and in such circumstances as the court may deem just, the court may
appoint an attorney for such complainant and may authorize the commencement of the civil action without the payment of fees, costs,
or security.”).

C.A. NO. 4:20-CV-00968 Page 5 of 8 Doe vs. NSF et al.,

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 d. Re-instate Plaintiff’s membership as a Scholar in H-LSAMP alliance;
e. Reverse grade “F’s” issued to Plaintiff in the Fall 2018 term and replace with “I’s”;
f. Refrain from subjecting Plaintiff to further discriminatory acts, environments and
accommodations that deprives Plaintiff of her consumer, Federal civil and constitutional rights,
protections and privileges;

a) Enjoin activities that violates Plaintiff’s rights provided by DTPA;

b) Enjoin activities that violates Plaintiff’s rights provided by Title IX;
c) Enjoin activities that violates Plaintiff’s rights provided by Title II/ADA;
d) Enjoin activities that violates Plaintiff’s rights provided by Section 504;
e) Enjoin activities that violates Plaintiff’s rights provided by Title VI;
f) Enjoin activities that violates Plaintiff’s rights provided by Title II (race);
g) Enjoin activities that violates Plaintiff’s rights provided by § 1981;

g. Enforce proper policies and procedures that comply with Federal anti-discrimination statutes
contingent upon Texas Southern’s eligibility for Federal financial assistance;

h. Eliminate architectural barriers preventing persons with handicaps and disabilities from
equally accessing Federally funded activities and programs;

i. Enjoin from disposing of or destroying documents, records, CCTV footage, bodycam

recordings and any material pertinent to support Plaintiff’s claims;

B. Defendant, National Science Foundation (“NSF”) must comply with the following:

a. Comply with Federal non-discrimination statutes and constitutional laws.

b. Re-instate Plaintiff’s LSAMP Scholarship awarded in 2018 for $14,000.

c. Conduct a review of Defendant, Texas Southern University’s programs and activities and if
NSF finds TSU incompliant with Federal anti-discrimination laws, terminate the University’s
Certificate of Compliance with the National Science Foundation;

d. Enjoin from disposing of or destroying documents, records, CCTV footage and any material
pertinent to support Plaintiff’s claims;

e. Ensure recipients of NSF Federal funding comply with anti-discrimination implementing

regulations;

f. Refrain from subjecting Plaintiff to further discriminatory acts, environments and

accommodations that deprives Plaintiff of her consumer, Federal civil and constitutional rights,
protections and privileges;

a) Enjoin activities that violates Plaintiff’s rights provided by DTPA;

b) Enjoin activities that violates Plaintiff’s rights provided by Title IX;
c) Enjoin activities that violates Plaintiff’s rights provided by Title II/ADA;
d) Enjoin activities that violates Plaintiff’s rights provided by Section 504;
e) Enjoin activities that violates Plaintiff’s rights provided by Title VI;
f) Enjoin activities that violates Plaintiff’s rights provided by Title II (race);

C.A. NO. 4:20-CV-00968 Page 6 of 8 Doe vs. NSF et al.,

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 g) Enjoin activities that violates Plaintiff’s rights provided by § 1981;

Further, Plaintiff respectfully request that the Court consider appointing an Attorney to represent Plaintiff.

Considering the controversial claims petition in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has been unable

to obtain representation. The appointment of an Attorney for Plaintiff would promote judicial economy.

Lastly Plaintiff, request’s that the Court permit the Attorney General to intervene in Civil Action #: 4:20-

CV-00968 if the Attorney General or his or her designee certifies that this case is of general public importance.

V. BOND

Should the Court issue a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunctive Relief, Plaintiffs request

that the Court waive the posting of a bond as Plaintiffs’ request represents no financial risk or harm to Defendants.

VI. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Defendants be temporarily enjoined from engaging in the

aforementioned acts that are adversely Plaintiff, pending final adjudication of the merits of Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint.

Respectfully submitted,

Plaintiff
/s/ Jane Doe
Jane Doe
Pro Se
9401 Beechnut St. Apt. 606
Houston, Texas 77036 – 66104
janedoe.420cv00968@icloud.com

Dated: Monday, November 2nd, 2020

C.A. NO. 4:20-CV-00968 Page 7 of 8 Doe vs. NSF et al.,

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 2nd day of November 2020, this foregoing document was

served on all counsel of record through:

Mr. Jason Marchand

Case Manager for U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter J. Bray
E-mail: Jason_Marchand@txs.uscourts.gov
515 Rusk Avenue Suite 7720
Houston, Texas 77002 – 2600
Phone: (713)-250-5148
Fax: (713)-250-5527

/s/ Jane Doe

Jane Doe
Plaintiff
Pro Se
9401 Beechnut St. Apt. 606
Houston, Texas 77036 – 66104
janedoe.420cv00968@icloud.com

Dated: Monday, November 2nd, 2020

C.A. NO. 4:20-CV-00968 Page 8 of 8 Doe vs. NSF et al.,

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
§
JANE DOE, §
§ C.A. NO. 4:20-CV-00968
Plaintiff,
§
§ JUDGE LYNN N. HUGHES
vs.
§
§ MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, PETER J. BRAY
§
TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY
§
Defendants.
§
.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Whereas the Court has considered Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order pending

consideration by the Court of the Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, Defendants’ Opposition,

Plaintiff’s Reply, the hearings before this Court, the relevant legal authorities, and the record of this case as a

whole;

The Court finds that has Plaintiff demonstrated both a strong likelihood of success on the merits of its

claims and the possibility that it faces immediate, irreparable injury from Defendant’s conduct. Given these

considerations, Plaintiff is entitled to provisional injunctive relief pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 65 and TEX. R. CIV.

P. 682.

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is hereby

GRANTED.

IT IS ORDERED that the Court shall appoint Plaintiff an Attorney.

IT IS ORDERED that the Attorney General shall be granted permission to intervene in this case if the

Attorney General determines this case to be of general public importance.

Accordingly, IT IS THERFORE ORDERED that, pending a trial on the merits, the Defendant’s and all

their respective officers, agents, participants, employees, attorneys, and persons acting in concert of participation

with them are hereby ORDERED to comply with the following: This order expires on ___________________.

1
Defendant, Texas Southern University (“TSU”) must comply with the following:

a. Reverse Plaintiff’s administrative withdrawal in the Spring 2019 term;

b. Re-instate Plaintiff’s enrollment in the 12 credit hours Plaintiff registered for Spring 2019;

c. Grant Plaintiff permission to complete these via distance education | self-paced;

d. Re-instate Plaintiff’s membership as a Scholar in H-LSAMP alliance;

e. Reverse grade “F’s” issued to Plaintiff in the Fall 2018 term and replace with “I’s”;

f. Refrain from subjecting Plaintiff to further discriminatory acts, environments and

accommodations that deprives Plaintiff of her consumer, Federal civil and constitutional rights,

protections and privileges;

g. Enforce proper policies and procedures that comply with Federal anti-discrimination statutes

contingent upon Texas Southern’s eligibility for Federal financial assistance

h. Eliminate architectural barriers preventing persons with handicaps and disabilities from

equally accessing Federally funded activities and programs.

i. Enjoin from disposing of or destroying documents, records, CCTV footage, bodycam

recordings and any material pertinent to support Plaintiff’s claims.

Defendant, National Science Foundation (“NSF”) must comply with the following:

a. Comply with Federal non-discrimination statutes and constitutional laws.

b. Re-instate Plaintiff’s scholarship awarded in 2018 for $14,000 and apply Plaintiff’s remaining

expendable balance of $8,750;

c. Conduct a review of Defendant, Texas Southern University’s programs and activities and if

NSF finds TSU incompliant with Federal anti-discrimination laws, terminate the University’s

Certificate of Compliance with the National Science Foundation;

d. Enjoin from disposing of or destroying documents, records, CCTV footage and any material

pertinent to support Plaintiff’s claims;

2
 e. Ensure recipients of NSF Federal funding comply with anti-discrimination implementing

regulations;

f. Refrain from subjecting Plaintiff to further discriminatory acts, environments and

accommodations that deprives Plaintiff of her consumer, Federal civil and constitutional rights,

protections and privileges;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing on Plaintiffs Application for Temporary Injunction

is set for ______________, 2020 at _______. The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether this

temporary restraining order should be made should be made a temporary injunction order pending a trial

on the merits of this action.

SO ORDERED, this ___ day of __________ 2020.

____________________________________
THE HONORABLE PETER J. BRAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3
 EXHIBIT A
“AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & MOTION FOR EXPEDITED
DISCOVERY”