Ex-county judge files civil rights lawsuit against Burnet County, sheriff, and former DA
Former Burnet County Judge James Oakley. File photo
Ex-Burnet County Judge James Oakley has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Burnet County government, Burnet County Sheriff Calvin Boyd, and former 33rd and 424th Judicial District Attorney Wiley “Sonny” McAfee. The lawsuit alleges that the county, Boyd, and McAfee persecuted Oakley through years of “baseless criminal prosecutions,” and that his constitutional rights were violated in the process.
Oakley and his legal representation filed the lawsuit on Monday, Oct. 26, with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas Austin Division. The lawsuit asserts that Oakley’s First and Fourth amendment rights were violated when the sheriff, DA, and county pursued “trumped up” criminal charges against him in 2023 in retaliation for him calling out perceived overtime pay discrepancies within the Burnet County Sheriff’s Office.
With the lawsuit filed, the Western District Court will begin reviewing the case and ultimately determine whether or not Oakley’s rights were violated and what, if any, compensation he should receive or punishment should be doled out to the defendants.
Oakley’s lawsuit claims the following:
- His Fourth Amendment rights were violated through malicious prosecution
- His First Amendment rights were violated through retaliation
- There was civil conspiracy to violate his First and Fourth amendment rights
- Texas Common-Law Malicious Prosecution
- Texas Civil Conspiracy
- Texas Abuse of Process
“I was wronged, and this is a way to address it,” Oakley told DailyTrib.
Oakley was indicted in March 2023 on four different criminal charges relating to a minor traffic accident he was involved in, his simultaneous service as Burnet County judge and a Pedernales Electric Cooperative board member, and the use of his county vehicle to attend PEC board meetings.
Three of those charges were quashed by the court in July 2023 and ultimately dismissed “in the interest of justice” in May 2026.
One charge, a misdemeanor for alleged misuse of government property referring to him driving his county truck to PEC board meetings, did go to trial. A jury found Oakley not guilty of the crime in August 2023.
Oakley was suspended from office in March 2023 following his indictment and did not return to the dais until September 2023, after his not guilty verdict was delivered. Oakley requested that the county pay him his missed salary from the suspension and his legal defense fees. The court did grant him the backpay, but not the $218,003.49 he says he spent fighting the criminal charges.
Oakley, in his lawsuit, asserts that these charges were brought against him as retaliation from Sheriff Boyd and former DA McAfee when he raised concerns about a “whistleblower” who said that the Sheriff’s Office was paying out overtime for hours that weren’t actually worked.
The Burnet County Commissioners Court ordered a third-party audit of the Sheriff’s Office following the accusation, but no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing was produced.
Assistant County Attorney Colleen Davis said the following when asked for comment by DailyTrib: “The County will coordinate with the Texas Association of Counties regarding representation, as appropriate. We are otherwise unable to comment on pending litigation.”
Sheriff Boyd said that he had “no comment,” until he had more time to review the suit.
DailyTrib was unable to reach McAfee by the time of this article’s publication.
Unrelated to the criminal charges in the lawsuit, Oakley resigned from his office in December 2024 after receiving a reprimand from the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct for courthouse security violations and sexual harassment.
McAfee chose not to run for reelection in 2024, and in 2025 was replaced by current 33rd and 424th Judicial District Attorney Perry Thomas.
Boyd still serves as the Burnet County sheriff, having run unopposed for reelection in 2024, taking office in 2025. His current term runs until 2028.
What did the Baker Tilly report actually find? Mr. Oakley’s lawsuit says it found “957 incidents in which timesheets had been altered.” The report says something much narrower. We read the report and we read Mr. Oakley’s complaint. We also studied the terminology in the report.
“FTO” and “CTO” are codes used on time sheets to track field training and communications training. Baker Tilly counted 957 times those codes appeared in time entries. That is all the count measured. The report did not measure the hours or dollars involved, or make any decision about the time entries. It tells you how many times training was coded.
Why does that matter? Counting how often a code appears is like counting receipts marked “lunch.” It tells you how often the word was used. That’s all it measures.
Shouldn’t a lawsuit asking taxpayers for money describe the report accurately?
Do you know that, a few years ago, Mr. Oakley called the FBI and reported his time sheet complaints? Two FBI agents met with Mr. Oakley to discuss his allegations. After data was gathered, and interviews were held with Burnet County employees, the FBI agent concluded that he did not have a federal violation and no investigation was initiated. Not too long after that, Mr. Oakley pushed the Baker-Tilly audit thru the commissioners court.
We read the complaint.
Is Mr. Oakley implying that genuine law enforcement investigators should tell an alleged suspect that the alleged suspect is being investigated?
Imagine that conversation: Genuine law enforcement investigator to alleged suspect “Hey, alleged suspect, we’re investigating you but don’t stop – keep doing what we’re investigating.”
The charges were improperly quashed and sent back to the trial court “for further proceedings”. That reinstated the charges. The article skipped a very significant event in the case histories because the State won on appeal and the charges were pending again for about 18 months. (State v. Oakley, Nos. 03-23-00417-CR to 03-23-00419-CR).
Mr. Oakley your legal fees are not the responsibility of the taxpayers.
FYI, Yes, Burnet county taxpayers you will be footing this bill. It will fall on us to pay his back attorney fees of 200k plus. He hired a high power lawyer to fight these past charges. Be careful supporting it because you will pay for it.