Long-Walker v. Kipp Texas et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DOREATHA LONG-WALKER 	§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
vs.
KIPP TEXAS, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-00403
ORDER
Pending before this Court is Plaintiff Doreatha Long-Walker's ("Plaintiff') Motion for
Permanent Injunction (Doc. No. 18), Defendants KIPP Texas, Antara Morris, Sehba Ali, Chuck
Fimble, Frank Cush, Lori Russel, Latrice Kossi-Manuel, Jasmine Yarborough, DeAndra Steele,
Amy Soria, Lauren Moss, Angela Gittens, and Amy Stable (collectively, "Defendants") Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. No. 30), Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No.
34), Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite Ruling on her Motion to Leave (Doc. No. 38), and Plaintiff's
Motion for Entry of Default (Doc. No. 39). Upon review of each of the responses to the pending
motions and the applicable legal standards, the Court hereby denies Plaintiff's Motion for
Permanent Injunction (Doc. No. 18) and grants Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended
Complaint (Doc. No. 34). Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite Ruling (Doc. No. 38) and Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 30) are denied as moot. As this would be the fourth version of the
Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court will not look favorably on any additional requests for leave.
Plaintiff, if she so chooses, may file a Third Amended Complaint by March 2, 2026. If an amended
complaint is filed, Defendants may file whatever response they deem appropriate by April 6, 2026.
The Court addresses each of the pending motions below.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 10, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-00403 Document 40 Filed 02/09/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

I. 	Factual Background
The Court presents a limited factual background as alleged in the Plaintiff's Second
Amended Complaint. Plaintiff, pro se, alleges that her employer, KIPP Texas, and a group of
individuals that work for KIPP Texas discriminated against her and committed retaliatory acts
against her on the basis of race and disability. (Doc. No. 29). Plaintiff was employed as a second-
grade teacher at KIPP Texas, a charter school in the Houston area. (Id.). On March 12 , 2025,
Plaintiff was terminated from her position. (Doc. No. 18). Plaintiff alleges Defendants abruptly
changed the terms and conditions of her employment agreement after she filed internal complaints
about discrimination, retaliation, denials of her approved accommodations, and the overall hostile
work environment. (Doc. No. 29). Plaintiff attached hundreds of pages of exhibits- 	largely
containing email communications with her employers- 	to her Second Amended Complaint in
support of these allegations. (Id.) .
Plaintiff pleaded four se parate purported causes of action against Defendants. First,
Plaintiff alleges that KIPP Texas violated the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. (Id.). Second, Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. (Id.). Third, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants caused "emotional and mental distress." (Id.). Lastly, she alleges that Defendants
violated the First Amendment. (Id.) . Additionally, Plaintiff requested the Court to grant a
permanent injunction for KIPP Texas to reinstate her position. (Doc. No. 18).
II. 	Analysis
Upon review of each of the responses and replies to each of the pending motions and the
applicable le gal standards, the Co urt hereby denies Plaintiff's Motion for Permanent Injunction
(Doc. No. 18) and grants Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No.
2
Case 4:25-cv-00403 Document 40 Filed 02/09/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

34). Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite Ruling (Doc. No. 38) and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
No. 30) are denied as moot. The Court outlines its analysis on each of the pending motions below.
A. Motion for Permanent Injunction
On March 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Permanent Injunction. (Doc. No. 18). In
the Motion, Plaintiff informed the Court that she was terminated from her position at KIPP Texas
on March 12 , 2025 via email. (Id.). Plaintiff requests this Court to issue an injunction that would
reinstate Plaintiff to her position as a second-grade teacher at KIPP Texas. (Id.). Plaintiff's request
is denied for the reasons set forth below.
"According to well-established principles of equity, a plaintiff seeking a permanent
injunction must satisfy a four-factor test before a court may grant such relief." eBay Inc. v.
MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). The plaintiff must demonstrate: " (l) that it has
suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are
inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between
the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would
not be disserved by a permanent injunction." Id.
In this case, Plaintiff provided a one-page document to request this permanent injunction-
an extraordinary judicial remed y. (Doc. No. 18). Not only did Plaintiff fail to address the legal
basis of her request for such an extraordinary remedy, but Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence
to show that she has (1) suffered an irreparable injury, (2) that remedies available at law, such as
monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury, (3) that, considering the balance
of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted, or (4) that the
public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. Any party requesting a
permanent injunction is required by law to satisfy these elements. eBay, Inc., 547 U.S. at 391.
3
Case 4:25-cv-00403 Document 40 Filed 02/09/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

While the Court certainly recognizes that "Plaintiff wants her job back," Plaintiff has failed to meet
her legal burden to show that the facts and law are in favor of her position. Accordingly, Plaintiff's
Motion for Permanent Injunction is denied.
B. 	Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint
Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 34)
and a Motion to Expedite Ruling on the Motion to Leave (Doc. No. 37). Plaintiff attached a Third
Amended Complaint to her request for leave. (Doc. No. 34-1 ). She requests leave from the Court
to amend her complaint to include the facts surrounding her termination from KIPP Texas, which
were not included in her previous complaints. She claims that she delayed amending her complaint
because she was awaiting the Court's ruling on her Motion for Permanent Injunction (Doc. No.
18) , which requested the Court to order her reinstatement to the position. As discussed above, this
Order denies that Motion for Permanent Injunction.
Understandably so , Defendants are opposed to the Court granting Plaintiff leave to file a
fourth version of her complaint. (Doc. No. 35). Defendants argue that Plaintiff has had months
since her termination in March to amend her complaint to include the relevant facts , including
when she filed a Second Amended Complaint without the Defendants' opposition in May. (Doc.
No. 29). Moreover, Defendants have now filed two separate Motions to Dismiss to two separate
versions of Plaintiff's complaint-e ach one denied as moot when an amended complaint was filed.
(Doc. Nos. 14 , 30). Though the Court is sympathetic to the Defendants' position, "[u]nless there
is a ' substantial reason ,' such as undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on the part of the
movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, and undue
prejudice to the opposing party," the court should grant leave to amend. Dussoy v. Gulf Coast Inv.
Corp., 660 F.2d 594, 598 (5th Cir. 1981).
4
Case 4:25-cv-00403 Document 40 Filed 02/09/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

With that being said, the Court will allow Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint. As
this will be her fourth version of the complaint, the Court will not look favorably on any additional
requests to amend. Therefore, Plaintiff may file a Third Amended Complaint, if she chooses to do
so, by March 2, 2026. Plaintiff does not have to file the current version of the Third Amended
Complaint that she attached to her Motion (Doc. No. 34-1). She may make any changes that she
sees fit to the Third Amended Complaint, but she is advised to carefully comply with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's Local Rules. If Plaintiff files a Third Amended
Complaint, Defendants may also file whatever response they so choose, in accordance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by April 6, 2026. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite
Ruling on the Motion to Leave (Doc. No. 37) and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 30)
are denied as moot.
C. Motion for Entry of Default
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Entry of Default against Defendants due to their lack of response
to Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite Ruling (Doc. No. 39). This request is denied. Under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 55 , "[ w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought
has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is show by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk
must enter the party's default." Such is not the case here. The Defendants in this case have appeared
in the case and filed pleadings to defend the case. Lack of response to Plaintiff's motion does not
subject the Defendants to a default judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default
is denied.
III. 	Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby denies Plaintiff's Motion for Permanent
Injunction (Doc. No. 18). Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Doc.
5
Case 4:25-cv-00403 Document 40 Filed 02/09/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

No. 34) is granted. Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite Ruling (Doc. No. 38) and Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. No. 30) are denied as moot. Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default (Doc. No. 39)
is denied. Any other pending motions are denied. As this would be the fourth version of the
Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court will not look favorably on any additional requests for leave.
Plaintiff, if she so chooses, may file a Third Amended Complaint by March 2, 2026. Defendants,
if they so choose, may refile a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, if one is filed, by
April 6, 2026.
It is so ordered.
,__\,¼_
Signed on this the -5_ day of February 2026.
Andrew S. Hanen
United States District Judge
6
Case 4:25-cv-00403 Document 40 Filed 02/09/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 6