The Incident

Capital Metro in Austin Texas has a policy about service animals riding the bus. According to them, the animal "must behave like a service animal" which is concerning because there is no behavioral profile for a service animal. What does go against the definition is aggressive behavior. When Major and I started riding the bus in 2024, we never had any problems. However, after certain people began intentionally kicking and provoking him, Major became wary of sitting under my feet at the entry-area of the bus reserved for service animals. He had been kicked - sometimes intentionally - so many times that he began to growl if someone got too close. For this reason, I thought moving to the back of the bus would solve the problem, but it did not. When Major was under my seat as required by Capital Metro, people sitting behind me would still kick him, and unlike the previous instances where people would seem to intentionally kick at him and try to provoke him while he was clearly visible from the aisle at the front of the bus, when we had moved to the back of the bus he was mostly hidden from view. This meant that if someone kicked him, it was much more likely to be an accident. But all it did was exacerbate the problem, leading to Major and I being told that if he growled at people, then "he was not a service animal" and could not ride the bus any longer. I had to act.

To solve this problem, I decided that getting a muzzle for him would eliminate the possibility of a provoked bite occurring if someone kicked him again, even if it was on purpose. Because I was experiencing housing instability, I could not afford for us to lose our only means of transportation, even if it was because someone was trying to provoke him into aggressive behavior. If you have ever ridden the Capital Metro bus in Austin Texas, there is no shortage of questionable characters that frequent the bus and cause problems or act aggressively.

We were actuallly on our way to pick this muzzle up when Major was hit by a white truck, and the driver did not stop and render aid. Because we were so close to the house he grew up in, I had let him off his leash early beause he knew the neighborhood. I did not realize that this one action would have grave consequences. Major was badly injured, and I did not have my phone with me. Major did not want to walk and would not let me pick him up, so I began to panic, and I decided to make a very hasty but also very carefully calculated decision.

The neighborhood where Major had grown up was a quiet community, and during Major's upbringing, he had gotten out of the back yard when he was being let out to potty. This resulted in Major not once, but twice, being encountered by someone in the public and having him promptly returned to a shelter where they scanned his microchip and informed me that my dog had been found, much to my surprise. The first time this happened, the same person who found him said he jumped right into their car, and was a very friendly boy. When the shelter called me, I exclaimed that he had forced his way out of the deteriorating fence and escaped into the neighborhood. The same person who found him brought him right back to me, and I forked over every dollar I had in my wallet as a gesture of thanks.

The second and final time Major got out of the fence, he had made it down the road to a neighbor's house, who quickly walked him back and said he was a friendly boy, but he was in their yard and they remembered seeing me walking him and apparently knew exactly which house he came from. In both of these instances, Major was returned to me without incident or injury. This is why I made a calculated decision to leave him where he was while I went to get help. The thought never crossed my mind that he would put someone else in danger.

While I was retrieving my phone to call for help, someone saw Major in the driveway and stopped their car. According to the police report and their own statement, they knew Major was injured, and they went onto the property anyways, where another bystander informed them that Animal Control had already been called and it would be up to 2 hours before they arrived. At this point, Major was obviously not acting aggressively, because if he had been, it is more likely that they would have kept their distance from him or said so in their sworn statement.

According to the police report and the sworn statement provided by the bystander, she knew Major was injured, yet had to "Chase the dog around and try to corral him to keep him out of the street" at which time she tried to corner him - an injured animal that was just trying to get away from someone he did not know - and when she did this he allegedly bit her several times. This was classified as a provoked bite.

Civil Trial

Immediately following the ruling of euthanasia, I went down to the clerk's office and filed a notice of appeal. Because I had no representation, I had to do everything myself. I spent the next month building a case in my own defense. I submitted hundreds of pages of evidence citing favorable rulings for parallel cases or incidents, and did my best to exhibit professional communication during all of my filings. The court initially wanted several thousands of dollars in repayment to Austin Animal Center to cover medical procedures and the cost of boarding, but Texas law prohibits the pursuit of fines if there is a ruling of euthanasia. To satisfy the court costs, I started a GoFundMe campaign, where I received around $4,000 of funding— nowhere close to the $14,000 the court wanted to cover court costs. For this reason, I filed an affidavit of indigence, and the court waived all of the fines. In response to this, I refunded all the GoFundMe donations.

Appellate Process

According to Texas Civil Procedure 506.3, a trial is handled "de novo" which means new trial. All of the previous evidence and witnesses must be re-introduced again, and the case is re-tried as if the first hearing never happened. Because I wanted to cross-examine the victim, I subpoenaed her myself. The state attempted to keep her testimony and her statement out of the record while simultaneously submitting the medical records that were left out of the municipal hearing, to which I offered an objection on the grounds of witness corroboration. My objection was sustained because, when citing the grounds for objection, I responded with "Where is the witness? Is [the victim] in this court room? I subpoenaed her myself", and when no response was received, the judge asked if the responding officer was present. When it was discovered that neither the witness nor the responding officer were present in the court room, the judge sustained my objection.

According to Texas Rules of Evidence 103, when an objection is sustained during the introduction of evidence, this evidence must be kept out of the court record and is not allowed to be used to influence a jury or the final ruling of judgement. But this is precisely what happened. The judge deliberated for 2 days and then affirmed the ruling of euthanasia citing medical records that were never submitted into evidence.

Again, I immediately filed a notice of appeal and cited inadmissible evidence as the main driving factor, along with several other case citations and references that were previously introduced during the Trial— but when the 3rd Circuit reviewed my case, they again affirmed the ruling, citing the same medical records that were never submitted in the first place! By this time, I was no longer experiencing housing instability, but the 3rd Circuit also cited that issue as another reason to affirm the judgement, without asking me if anything had changed.

To add insult to injury, the State outright lied to the court in the State's reply brief telling the court there was no proof that I had subpoenaed the witness, when there was clearly proof in the record, which itself is in the court reporter's record. I also subpoenaed a second witness to testify and she showed up. So why did one show up but not the other if there is no proof I filed a subpoena, because they were both listed on the same document, submitted and served by the same deputy! And it did not stop there. I was astounded by the gall of the prosecution: 3 established lawyers against one pro-se litigant and they had the nerve to complain to the court demanding a fair trial in their State's Reply Brief while outright lying to the court about subpoenas and refusing to call their own witness to the stand. Fair trial indeed!

Despite numerous case references and what I considered to be a valid defense, the judgement was affirmed, and all attempts at a rehearing or review were consecutively denied. For the third time, I filed another notice of appeal, but this time to the Supreme Court, citing prejudicial abuse of discretion, violation of due process, inadmissible evidence, violations of constitutional amendments V, VI, and XIV related to deprivation of a meaningful and complete defense, and irreperable harm related to the loss of a service animal capable of seizure response.

Note

Click here to view more information about the Civil Trial and appellate procedure to the 3rd Circuit.

Supreme Court

After 30 days of waiting, the Supreme Court denied my case without review. I submitted a motion for a rehearing, and after waiting another 31 days, it was also denied, bringing a bitter end to my journey to the Supreme Court to save the life of my service animal.

But I refused to go quietly into the night.

A few days after the Supreme Court denied review, I submitted an Emergency Motion to Stay the euthanasia, but this time focusing specifically on the irreperable harm portion of my case. During the conference call with the state regarding merits of the motion for relief, I explained that I had never submitted a motion to dismiss because I wanted the opportunity to establish a "meaningful and complete defense" by cross-examining the witness to prove that she had trespassed onto the property, in lieu of my constitutional amendment rights V, VI, and XIV and the deprivation of that opportunity and thus the deprivation of those constitutional rights. I said to them "I want this to be as fair as possible" — and they chuckled at me and said the state is opposed. Because of this, I said screw it and filed a motion to dismiss, which clearly states that if no review will be had, and no retrial, rehearing, or reconsideration will be granted, then a motion to dismiss on the grounds of Civil Pro 506.3 and Tex R Evid 103 will be used to dismiss the case. This motion was filed with a note consisting of two words:

Hail Mary.

Update

On September 3rd, one day after the story made national news, the appellate court denied our final two motions to stay the euthanasia.