CJ Grisham’s lawsuits are a decade-long string of federal civil rights cases against Texas cities, police officers, and county officials, most arising from open-carry arrests or clashes at public meetings. Courts have dismissed most of them on qualified immunity grounds. A handful remain active, and one is now before the Fifth Circuit on appeal.
Grisham is a retired U.S. Army First Sergeant, a Texas attorney licensed in May 2023, and the founder of Open Carry Texas. He currently serves as Legal and Legislative Counsel for Texas Gun Rights.1Texas Gun Rights. CJ Grisham, Esq. His path into litigation began with his own 2013 arrest outside Temple, Texas, when a police sergeant confronted him during a 10-mile hike he was taking with his son, who was working on a Boy Scout merit badge. Grisham was carrying a loaded AR-15 slung across his chest along with a licensed concealed handgun. He was charged with and convicted of interfering with the duties of a police officer, and the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed that conviction on March 23, 2017.2Justia. Grisham v. State, 03-14-00137-CR
The Temple Lawsuit
In March 2015, Grisham and his wife, on behalf of their son, filed civil lawsuits against the City of Temple, former Police Chief Gary Smith, and the two officers involved in the 2013 arrest. The claims included assault and battery, false arrest, emotional distress, and excessive force. The cases were consolidated in federal court in Waco.3KXXV. Court Dismisses Lawsuit Filed Against City of Temple by Local Gun Rights Activist
In November 2015, U.S. District Judge Walter S. Smith dismissed all claims against the city and Officer Steve Ermis. Only a false-arrest claim brought on behalf of Grisham’s son against Sergeant Thomas Menix survived the initial motion, with the court indicating that summary judgment would be the appropriate path to resolve it.4Temple Daily Telegram. Grisham’s Federal Lawsuit Dismissed by Judge
The Olmos Park Lawsuits
On March 27, 2018, Grisham and fellow activist James Everard staged a protest in Olmos Park, a small city near San Antonio, against a municipal ordinance prohibiting the carrying of loaded rifles and shotguns on public streets. Multiple 911 callers reported a man with an AK-47-style rifle. Officers ordered Everard to the ground, he refused, and Grisham approached filming with a handgun. Police tased Grisham and arrested both men. Everard was charged with disorderly conduct and Grisham with interference with public duties, and both charges were later dismissed for insufficient evidence.5U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Grisham v. Valenciano, No. 22-50915 Two days after the arrests, the Olmos Park City Council voted unanimously to repeal the ordinance, acknowledging it conflicted with state law.6San Antonio Express-News. Olmos Park Repeals Gun Ordinance After Arrests
Grisham v. Valenciano: the Arrest Claims
Grisham and Everard sued the City of Olmos Park 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, 2024.5U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Grisham v. Valenciano, No. 22-50915
The appeals court found the officers had probable cause based on the totality of the circumstances and video evidence. Under the Supreme Court’s standard in Nieves v. Bartlett, that probable cause defeated the retaliatory-arrest claims because the plaintiffs offered no evidence they were treated differently than similarly situated individuals not engaged in protected speech. On the excessive-force claim, the court concluded the tasing was reasonable given Grisham’s non-compliance. The officers received qualified immunity, and the municipal liability claim collapsed because no underlying constitutional violation was established. 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: the 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 law enforcement agencies. They alleged the chief characterized them as “cop killers and mass murderers” and filed a second federal lawsuit (Case No. 5:21-cv-00983) alleging First Amendment retaliation and municipal liability.8GovInfo. Grisham v. Valenciano, 5:21-cv-00983
U.S. District Judge Jason Pulliam dismissed the case with prejudice on January 20, 2023. The court granted Valenciano qualified immunity, holding that an investigation alone does not typically constitute an actionable adverse action under First Amendment retaliation law, and that no clearly established precedent put the chief on notice that his conduct was unconstitutional. The municipal liability claim was dismissed for failing to allege sufficient facts about an official policy or custom of retaliation.8GovInfo. Grisham v. Valenciano, 5:21-cv-00983
The Aransas Pass Cases
Grisham has filed two suits tied to the coastal city of Aransas Pass, both stemming from disputes with the city’s police chief, Eric Blanchard, and city officials after a January 16, 2024 council meeting at which Grisham’s client Jason Followell used profanity directed at Blanchard and was escorted out.9KRIS TV. Angry Citizen Disrupts Aransas Pass City Council Meeting
Followell v. City of Aransas Pass
On March 1, 2024, Grisham filed a federal civil rights suit on Followell’s behalf against the city, Chief Blanchard, City Manager Nathan Kelley, and Mayor Ramiro Gomez.10CourtListener. Followell v. City of Aransas Pass, 2:24-cv-00055 The complaint 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 after courts granted his motion to suppress on Fourth Amendment grounds.11Podbean. Aransas Pass Jason Followell Lawsuit Complaint The defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment in January 2025. As of the last docket update in April 2026, the court had not ruled and the case remained active.
Grisham v. City of Aransas Pass
Grisham also filed a separate suit in his own name against the city, Blanchard, and Gomez on November 16, 2025 (Case No. 2:25-cv-00302). The defendants filed a notice of settlement on March 11, 2026, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal on April 14, 2026, and 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 This is the only one of Grisham’s federal cases to date that resolved in a settlement rather than a dismissal.
The 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, alleging 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 responded in August 2024 with a motion to dismiss, arguing that council meetings are “limited public forums” where viewpoint-neutral speech restrictions are legally permissible. Grisham countered that the rules were unconstitutional and violated 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.
The Tarrant County Lawsuit Against Tim O’Hare
In July 2025, Grisham filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas against Tarrant County, County Judge Tim O’Hare, and four Tarrant County Sheriff’s Office officials. It arose from two January 2025 incidents at Tarrant County Commissioners Court sessions. Grisham alleged that on January 14 he 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 attorney fees and compensatory damages. Grisham represented himself. On April 8, 2026, Senior Judge Terry R. Means granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. All federal claims were dismissed with prejudice and the state-law claims were dismissed 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 Defeating These Cases
A common thread runs through nearly every Grisham federal case that has reached a judicial decision: 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 investigative-file case, the district court granted the police chief qualified immunity because no established precedent put him on notice that compiling such a file was unconstitutional. In the Tarrant County case, 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 hide behind 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 merits decision. The Killeen free-speech case and the Followell case remain unresolved, and the Tarrant County dismissal is now on appeal before the Fifth Circuit.