Page one of a Motion to Dismiss filed in the Leila Green Little et.al., Plaintiffs v. Llano County et.al., Defendants civil lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, Austin Division. Also listed is the state of Texas as intervenor-defendant on behalf of Llano County.
A joint motion to dismiss a civil case against Llano County and its library system was filed Wednesday, June 8, in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, Austin Division, with the state of Texas listed as an intervenor-defendant along with “Llano County, et.al., Defendants.”
In conjunction with the Motion to Dismiss, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a Motion to Intervene asking District Judge Robert Pitman to allow the state to intervene on behalf of Llano County in the case.
Meanwhile, at a regular meeting set for 9 a.m. Monday, June 13, the Llano County Commissioners Court is set to discuss allocating $150,000 out of county funds to fight the lawsuit charging the county violated the First and 14th Amendments in removing books from library shelves and other actions. The case was filed on Monday, April 25.
The civil suit was filed on behalf of plaintiffs Leila Green Little, Jeanne Puryear, Kathy Kennedy, Rebecca Jones, Richard Day, Cynthia Waring, and Diane Moster, all of whom are Llano County residents and users of the library system.
Defendants are Llano County Judge Ron Cunningham; county Commissioners Jerry Don Moss, Peter Jones, Linda Raschke, and Mike Sandoval; library system Director Amber Milum; and Library Advisory Board members Gay Baskin, Bonnie Wallace, Rochelle Wells, and Rhonda Schnieder.
The Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants conversely claims that the plaintiffs have no standing. The 16-page document claims that the plaintiffs’ claims are moot and they “have no liberty or property interested in the purported wrong that they claim to be trying to right.”
“Furthermore, the purported violation of their free-speech rights is not actionable curtailment, but speech by the government itself that is not subject to the fetters they seek to impose,” the motion reads. “The Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ claims, which at any rate do not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For both of those reasons, the Court should dismiss the complaint with prejudice.”
None of the representatives for the plaintiffs or defendants could be reached by phone before publication of this story.