providing that, as long as it is not “so facially deficient . . . that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid[,] . . . a warrant issued by a magistrate normally suffices to establish that a law enforcement officer has acted in good faith” in executing it
How later courts described this case
- providing that, as long as it is not “so facially deficient . . . that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid[,] . . . a warrant issued by a magistrate normally suffices to establish that a law enforcement officer has acted in good faith” in executing it
- holding an officer violates the Fourth Amendment if he deliberately or recklessly makes material misstatements or omissions in a warrant application
- “The First Amendment forbids the government to regulate speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others.” (citation modified)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Case: 24-50646 Document: 50-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/09/2025
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 24-50646
FILED
September 9, 2025
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Jeremy Story,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Bill Gravell, Williamson County Judge; Mike Gleason,
Williamson County Sheriff; Brien Casey, Williamson County Deputy;
Jason Briggs, Williamson County Deputy; Williamson County,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:23-CV-1120
______________________________
Before Davis, Wilson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jeremy Story is a frequent participant in the public affairs of
Williamson County, Texas. When local leaders banished him from a school
board meeting, a warrant for Story’s arrest was issued on a charge of
“Hindering Proceedings by Disorderly Conduct.” After spending a night in
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 24-50646 Document: 50-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/09/2025
No. 24-50646
jail, Story appeared to give public comment on a school-funding measure at
Williamson County Commissioners Court. He was removed for talking out
of turn. Based on his arrest and latest public ejection, he brought a civil-rights
complaint for violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights. The
district court dismissed that complaint for failure to state a claim. We
AFFIRM.
I.
By his account, Story “is known” in the local community as a
“principled,” “morally conscious Christian pastor” and “Republican who
has exposed corruption among current and past Williamson County
officials.” Story’s complaint alleges that “[h]is challenges to entrenched
elected incumbents have caused an upheaval in political leadership in
Williamson County.” It further alleges that, as “a taxpayer in the Round
Rock Independent School District” and father of “school-age children,” he
“takes an interest in the decisions affecting the public school system.”
Story brought that enthusiasm to the school district’s board meetings.
His complaint recounts two episodes from 2021 where Round Rock ISD
police officers forcibly removed him from those meetings. The first came in
August, when Story registered his concerns during a public-comment period.
The second arose in September, from when he was refused entry into the
board’s meeting room.
Three days after the latter incident, a Round Rock ISD police officer
swore an arrest-warrant affidavit against Story for “Hindering Proceedings
by Disorderly Conduct,” a misdemeanor. That same day, a magistrate
determined that the affidavit established probable cause and issued the
warrant. The warrant bore the seal of Williamson County Sheriff Mike
2
Case: 24-50646 Document: 50-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/09/2025
No. 24-50646
Gleason.1 Within a few hours, Williamson County Deputies Brien Casey and
Jason Briggs, inter alios, arrived at Story’s house. After Story surrendered to
them, he was taken to the county jail and held overnight.
Story’s jail stint did not dissuade him from public advocacy. On
December 21, 2021, he attended a Williamson County Commissioners Court
meeting. At the meeting, which was recorded,2 the school district’s proposal
for additional funding was discussed. Story was on the agenda and spoke
without interruption during his allotted time. He opposed the grant on the
ground that the school district’s superintendent, Hafedh Azaiez, was corrupt
and would misappropriate the funds.
Despite Story’s opposition, the court approved the grant. When
members of the audience applauded that development, Judge Gravell
admonished the attendees to abide by the court’s rules of decorum, which
forbade applause, outbursts, and speaking beyond one’s 3-minute allotment.
After the applause subsided, an argument between two audience members
ensued. Judge Gravell then addressed Story, one of those speakers. Story
now alleges that “it was [a] woman in the audience who disturbed the
meeting.” The video confirms that Story continued his protestation, which
prompted Judge Gravell to expel him from the meeting.
_____________________
1
The warrant and accompanying affidavit, attached to the defendants’ motion to
dismiss, are considered part of the pleadings because they are referenced in Story’s
complaint, and because they are integral to his Fourth Amendment false-arrest claims.
Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498–99 (5th Cir. 2000).
2
Story’s complaint cites a link to the video and relies on the footage for numerous
allegations, thus making it part of his pleadings. Id.; Harmon v. City of Arlington, 16 F.4th
1159, 1163 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007)).
3
Case: 24-50646 Document: 50-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/09/2025
No. 24-50646
II.
On September 18, 2023, Story brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Sheriff Gleason, the Deputies, and Judge Gravell. He alleged that he
was arrested on September 17, 2021 without probable cause in violation of
the Fourth Amendment. That arrest, as well as his December 21, 2021
expulsion from Commissioners Court, also allegedly infringed on his free-
speech rights under the First Amendment. Specifically, the complaint
claimed Gleason and the Deputies arrested him in retaliation for his
protected speech at the school board meetings and that Judge Gravell ejected
him from court because of his viewpoint. A magistrate judge issued a report,
recommending dismissal of Story’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The
district court adopted that recommendation over Story’s objections. Final
judgment was entered on July 1, 2024. This appeal timely followed.
III.
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.’”3 “Threadbare” allegations and “conclusory statements[] do not
suffice.”4 Story’s claims rely on his assertion that “Williamson County
officers Gravell, Gleason, Casey, and Briggs . . . worked in conjunction with
[the school district] to prosecute political enemies.” But that allegation is
threadbare. And Story offers no facts tending to establish an agreement
among the school district and Sheriff Gleason, the Deputies, or Judge
Gravell.5 Accordingly, any animus that could be inferred on the part of the
_____________________
3
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2009)).
4
Id. (citing Twombly, 556 U.S. at 555).
5
See Twombly, 556 U.S. at 556–57.
4
Case: 24-50646 Document: 50-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/09/2025
No. 24-50646
school district cannot be attributed to the defendants that Story sued in this
case.6 Without a conspiratorial scheme, Story’s constitutional claims fail.
A plaintiff alleging a false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment
must show that the defendant-officer arrested him without probable cause.7
“[P]robable cause speaks to the objective reasonableness of an arrest.”8
Under that standard, an officer may reasonably rely on a facially valid warrant
when making an arrest, subject to one exception: his reliance must be in good
faith.9 Story pleaded no facts showing that the Deputies should have doubted
the warrant’s validity. What is more, Story did not allege either that the
Deputies signed the affidavit or that Sheriff Gleason was responsible for any
material misstatements or omissions.10 So, Story’s Fourth Amendment
claims against them fail.11
_____________________
6
See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677 (“In a § 1983 suit, . . . each Government official . . . is
only liable for his or her own misconduct.”).
7
See, e.g., Hughes v. Garcia, 100 F.4th 611, 619 (5th Cir. 2024).
8
Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391, 402 (2019) (citing Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S.
731, 736 (2011)).
9
See, e.g., United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922–23 (1984) (providing that, as
long as it is not “so facially deficient . . . that the executing officers cannot reasonably
presume it to be valid[,] . . . a warrant issued by a magistrate normally suffices to establish
that a law enforcement officer has acted in good faith” in executing it).
10
See generally Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 166–67 (1978) (holding an officer
violates the Fourth Amendment if he deliberately or recklessly makes material
misstatements or omissions in a warrant application).
11
Because Story’s arrest was supported by probable cause, he cannot state a claim
for a retaliatory arrest in violation of the First Amendment without satisfying either the
Lozman or Nieves exception. See Lozman v. Riviera Beach, 585 U.S. 87 (2018); Nieves, 587
U.S. at 391. His claims fall under neither.
5
Case: 24-50646 Document: 50-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/09/2025
No. 24-50646
The First Amendment restricts the government from regulating
speech in a limited public forum on the basis of the speaker’s viewpoint.12
Although Story was permitted to state his views without interruption, he
argues that Judge Gravell ousted him from the Commissioners Court
meeting unfairly. Story claims that he was treated differently than other
speakers—namely, the woman who yelled at him—because of his views.
However, the uncontested video evidence incorporated into his pleading
shows that Story engaged in an extended colloquy with Judge Gravell, all
while being warned to discontinue the interruption. Therefore, Story has not
plausibly pleaded that he was treated differently from anyone who committed
a sustained violation of the court’s decorum rules. Absent other allegations
tending to show that his viewpoint led to his expulsion, Story’s First
Amendment claim against Judge Gravell fails.13
As Story has not plausibly alleged any violation of his constitutional
rights, we need not consider his further argument that the district court erred
in dismissing his suit on qualified immunity grounds.
IV.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
_____________________
12
See, e.g., Lamb’s Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 394
(1993) (“The First Amendment forbids the government to regulate speech in ways that
favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others.” (citation modified)); Good News
Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98, 107 (2001).
13
Story also raises a parallel state-law claim for viewpoint discrimination under the
Texas Open Meetings Act. But he has not developed an argument on appeal that this law
provides broader protections than the First Amendment, so the district court’s dismissal
of this claim was proper.
6