CJ Grisham, a retired Army First Sergeant turned Texas attorney and gun-rights activist, has filed a string of federal civil rights lawsuits against Texas cities, police departments, and county officials since 2015. Most of the CJ Grisham lawsuits that have reached a decision have been dismissed, often on qualified immunity grounds; two remain active in the Western District of Texas, one has settled, and one is now on appeal before the Fifth Circuit.1Texas Gun Rights. CJ Grisham, Esq.
The Temple Lawsuit That Started the Pattern
Grisham’s litigation history traces back to a March 2013 confrontation on a country road outside Temple, Texas, where a police sergeant stopped him while he was hiking with his son and carrying a slung AR-15. Dashcam video showed the officer pointing his gun at Grisham and slamming him against a squad car. Grisham was charged with and convicted of interfering with the duties of a police officer, and the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed the conviction on March 23, 2017.2Justia. Grisham v. State, 03-14-00137-CR
In March 2015, Grisham and his wife, on behalf of their son, sued the City of Temple, former Police Chief Gary Smith, and the two officers involved. The claims included assault and battery, false arrest, emotional distress, and excessive force.3KXXV. Court Dismisses Lawsuit Filed Against City of Temple by Local Gun Rights Activist The cases were consolidated in federal court in Waco. In November 2015, U.S. District Judge Walter S. Smith dismissed all claims against the city and Officer Steve Ermis. A false-arrest claim brought on behalf of Grisham’s son against Sergeant Thomas Menix survived the initial motion, with the court signaling that summary judgment would be the next step.4Temple Daily Telegram. Grisham’s Federal Lawsuit Dismissed by Judge
Olmos Park: Two Federal Suits Over an Open-Carry Arrest
On March 27, 2018, Grisham and fellow activist James Everard staged a protest in Olmos Park against a municipal ordinance that prohibited carrying loaded rifles and shotguns on public streets. After 911 callers reported a man with an AK-47-style rifle on a busy road, officers ordered Everard, who had a rifle strapped to his chest, to get on the ground. He refused. Grisham approached while filming and carrying a handgun. Police tased Grisham and arrested both men. Charges against both were later dismissed for insufficient evidence, and two days after the arrests the Olmos Park City Council repealed the ordinance, acknowledging it conflicted with state law.5San Antonio Express-News. Olmos Park Repeals Gun Ordinance After Arrests
Grisham v. Valenciano (The Arrest Case)
Grisham and Everard sued the city and several officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment retaliation, Fourth Amendment unlawful arrest and excessive force, and Fourteenth Amendment violations. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed on February 26, 2024.6U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Grisham v. Valenciano, No. 22-50915
The appeals court held that officers had probable cause to arrest based on the totality of the circumstances and the video evidence. Under Nieves v. Bartlett, the existence of probable cause defeated the retaliatory-arrest claims, because the plaintiffs did not show they were treated differently than similarly situated individuals not engaged in protected speech. The court reviewed the video of the tasing and found the force reasonable given Grisham’s non-compliance and the perceived safety threat. Qualified immunity shielded the officers on every federal claim, and the municipal liability claim collapsed with the underlying constitutional claims. The plaintiffs also forfeited their malicious prosecution arguments by failing to adequately brief them on appeal.7FindLaw. Grisham v. Valenciano, No. 22-50915
The Second Olmos Park Suit (Investigative File)
During discovery in the first case, Grisham and Everard learned that Olmos Park Police Chief Rene Valenciano had compiled an approximately 160-page file on them and shared it with other agencies. They alleged the chief had characterized them as “cop killers and mass murderers” and filed a second federal suit (Case No. 5:21-cv-00983) alleging First Amendment retaliation and municipal liability. U.S. District Judge Jason Pulliam dismissed the case with prejudice on January 20, 2023, granting the chief qualified immunity on the grounds that an investigation alone is not typically an actionable adverse action and no clearly established precedent put him on notice otherwise. The municipal claim was dismissed for failing to allege an official policy or custom of retaliation.8GovInfo. Grisham v. Valenciano, 5:21-cv-00983
The Aransas Pass Cases
Grisham filed two federal cases out of a dispute with the City of Aransas Pass and Police Chief Eric Blanchard. One was on behalf of a client; the other was in his own name.
Followell v. City of Aransas Pass
On March 1, 2024, Grisham filed a federal civil rights suit on behalf of Jason Followell against the City of Aransas Pass, Chief Blanchard, City Manager Nathan Kelley, and Mayor Ramiro Gomez.9CourtListener. Followell v. City of Aransas Pass, 2:24-cv-00055 The complaint followed a January 16, 2024 city council meeting where Followell used profanity directed at the chief during public comment and was escorted out.10KRIS TV. Angry Citizen Disrupts Aransas Pass City Council Meeting It also alleged a broader pattern of retaliation, including a September 2022 criminal trespass warning that barred Followell from city property, and code violation charges filed after a warrantless search of his business that were later dismissed when courts granted a motion to suppress on Fourth Amendment grounds.11Podbean. Aransas Pass Jason Followell Lawsuit Complaint The defendants filed motions to dismiss and for summary judgment in January 2025. As of the April 2026 docket update, the court had not ruled and the case remained active.
Grisham v. City of Aransas Pass
Grisham filed a separate suit in his own name against the City of Aransas Pass, Chief Blanchard, and Mayor Gomez on November 16, 2025 (Case No. 2:25-cv-00302). The defendants filed a notice of settlement on March 11, 2026, and the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal on April 14, 2026. The case was terminated on April 22, 2026. The settlement terms were not made public through the court docket.12CourtListener. Grisham v. City of Aransas Pass, 2:25-cv-00302
Killeen Free-Speech Lawsuit
On June 25, 2024, Grisham filed a federal lawsuit in the Western District of Texas on behalf of five Killeen residents — Anca Neagu, Michael Fornino, Mellisa Brown, Camron Cochran, and James Everard — against the City of Killeen, Mayor Debbie Nash-King, City Manager Kent Cagle, and other officials. The suit seeks $1 million in damages and alleges five counts of civil rights violations centered on First Amendment free speech and Fourteenth Amendment due process.13KDH News. No Trial Date Set in Free Speech Lawsuit Against Killeen Elected Officials
The complaint alleges that city officials enforced unconstitutional “rules of decorum” at council meetings, including interrupting speakers, restricting comments to agenda items, and preventing criticism of elected officials. The city moved to dismiss in August 2024, arguing council meetings are limited public forums where viewpoint-neutral speech restrictions are permissible. Grisham countered that the rules violate both the First Amendment and the Texas Open Meetings Act. As of October 2024, Judge Alan D. Albright had not ruled on the motion and no hearings had been scheduled.13KDH News. No Trial Date Set in Free Speech Lawsuit Against Killeen Elected Officials
Tarrant County and Tim O’Hare
In July 2025, Grisham filed a federal civil rights suit in the Northern District of Texas against Tarrant County, County Judge Tim O’Hare, and four Tarrant County Sheriff’s Office officials. The complaint arose from two Commissioners Court sessions earlier that year. On January 14, 2025, Grisham was refused entry while carrying a firearm, a right he asserted as a retired federal counterintelligence agent, and was detained by deputies. On January 28, he was removed from a meeting for using an expletive.14Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Gun Rights Activist Sues Tarrant County Judge Tim O’Hare
The complaint alleged violations of the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments and sought $250,000 in punitive damages plus compensatory damages and attorney fees. Grisham represented himself and argued the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated clearly established law. On April 8, 2026, Senior Judge Terry R. Means granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, dismissing the federal claims with prejudice and the state-law claims without prejudice. Grisham filed a notice of appeal on April 10, 2026, and the case is now before the Fifth Circuit as Case No. 26-10335.15PACER Monitor. Grisham v. O’Hare et al, 4:25-cv-00716
Why Qualified Immunity Keeps Deciding These Cases
The common thread across nearly every CJ Grisham case that has reached a decision is qualified immunity, the doctrine that shields government officials from civil liability unless they violate a clearly established constitutional right. In the Olmos Park arrest case, both the district court and the Fifth Circuit found the officers were protected because they reasonably believed they had probable cause. In the Olmos Park retaliation case, the district court granted the police chief qualified immunity because no established precedent put him on notice that compiling an investigative file was unconstitutional. In the Tarrant County case, the docket shows the court stayed discovery pending resolution of the defendants’ qualified-immunity defenses before granting dismissal.15PACER Monitor. Grisham v. O’Hare et al, 4:25-cv-00716
Grisham’s filings consistently argue that officials cannot invoke qualified immunity when they violate rights he views as plainly established by the First and Second Amendments. That argument has yet to prevail in any of his federal cases that reached a judicial decision. The Killeen free-speech case and the Followell case remain unresolved in the Western District, and the Tarrant County dismissal is pending before the Fifth Circuit.