CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION — SPECIAL LITIGATION SECTION
FORMAL COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
COMPLAINANT
———————————————————–
Name: LeRoy Nellis II
Email: leroynellis2@gmail.com
Relation: Former detainee and author of “The Rise of AI Surveillance Behind Bars (2025)”
Address: 4845 Twin Valley Dr. Austin, TX 78731
Phone: 512.450.1533
RESPONDENT ENTITY
———————————————————–
Williamson County Sheriff’s Office and Williamson County Jail
306 W. 4th Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
ASSOCIATED FEDERAL ENTITIES
———————————————————–
U.S. Marshals Service (USMS)
Federal Bureau of Investigation — Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS)
Texas Department of Public Safety / Texas Crime Information Center (TCIC)
———————————————————–
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
———————————————————–
This complaint is submitted under 34 U.S.C. §12601 (formerly 42 U.S.C. §14141)
and 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging a continuing pattern and practice of constitutional,
statutory, and ethical violations arising from the use of **AI-enabled surveillance
systems** at the Williamson County Jail and the integration of those systems with
federal databases (NCIC, TCIC, CJIS).
———————————————————–
PERSONAL STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE
———————————————————–
I, LeRoy Nellis II, experienced these practices first-hand during my detention
at the Williamson County Jail between January 2024 and July 2025.
While confined, I observed and was subjected to:
• continuous video and audio recording in every area of the facility, including
attorney–client consultation rooms and legal-mail processing areas;
• behavioral-analysis and voice-tone tracking used to influence housing,
classification, and disciplinary decisions;
• the presence of networked terminals displaying real-time analytics of detainees’
facial expressions and speech patterns;
• deliberate obstruction of confidential legal communication.
My observations form the factual basis for my legal research published as
*The Rise of AI Surveillance Behind Bars (2025)*, incorporated here as Exhibit A.
These experiences confirm that Williamson County Jail’s surveillance program
functions as a real-time data-collection node for federal intelligence systems,
violating privacy, due process, and the right to counsel.
———————————————————–
SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS
———————————————————–
1. Continuous AI Surveillance — Jail systems record and algorithmically
analyze all movements, expressions, and communications, including
privileged legal consultations.
2. Federal Data Integration — Surveillance data is shared with or made
accessible to USMS, FBI-CJIS, and TxDPS-TCIC, forming a de facto national
intelligence profile of unconvicted individuals.
3. Constitutional Violations
• Fourth Amendment / Tex. Const. Art. I §9 — Unreasonable searches through
warrantless continuous monitoring.
• Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments / Art. I §19 — Compelled self-incrimination
via algorithmic inference and deprivation of due process.
• Sixth Amendment / Art. I §10 — Destruction of attorney–client confidentiality.
• Eighth Amendment / International Law — Psychological and administrative
torture through perpetual observation.
4. Statutory Violations
• Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2523
• Texas Wiretap Statute, Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 18.20
• Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a
• CJIS Security Policy §§ 5.2 and 5.9
• Texas Government Code §§ 411.042 and 552.101
5. Federalism Breakdown
Under intergovernmental contracts with the U.S. Marshals Service,
Williamson County acts as both local jailer and federal data conduit,
erasing sovereign boundaries and producing what my research identifies
as algorithmic federalism.
6. Ethical Failures
Attorneys, prosecutors, and correctional staff operate in violation of
ABA Model Rules 1.6, 3.8, 4.4 and Texas Rules 1.05, 3.09, 4.04 by using or
benefiting from illegally obtained AI surveillance data.
———————————————————–
LEGAL BASIS FOR DOJ JURISDICTION
———————————————————–
• 34 U.S.C. § 12601 — Pattern or practice of rights deprivations by officials.
• 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — Deprivation of rights under color of state law.
• 42 U.S.C. § 1997a (CRIPA) — Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act.
• 28 C.F.R. Part 0 Subpart J — DOJ authority over correctional institutions.
• OIG Concurrent Jurisdiction — federal participation through USMS and CJIS.
———————————————————–
RELIEF REQUESTED
———————————————————–
The Complainant respectfully requests that the Department of Justice:
1. Initiate a CRIPA investigation into the use of AI surveillance within
Williamson County Jail.
2. Audit all intergovernmental data-sharing agreements between Williamson
County, USMS, FBI-CJIS, and TxDPS-TCIC.
3. Order immediate cessation of AI monitoring in attorney–client and
medical areas.
4. Mandate forensic review and destruction of AI-generated data transmitted
to federal systems.
5. Issue a findings letter declaring these practices a pattern or practice of
constitutional violation.
6. Refer responsible officials for prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511–2512
and Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 18.20.
7. Develop national guidance defining constitutional and ethical limits on
AI use in correctional settings.
———————————————————–
SUPPORTING EXHIBITS
———————————————————–
Exhibit A — The Rise of AI Surveillance Behind Bars (2025)
Comprehensive legal analysis and factual record.
Exhibit B — Texas Jail & Pre-Trial Detention Summary (2024–2025)
Statewide evidence of systemic jail negligence.
Exhibit C — Wilco Abuse Summary
Typology of institutional, psychological, and physical abuse.
Exhibit D — Intergovernmental Control & Algorithmic Federalism
Analysis of dual sovereignty and federal–local data fusion.
———————————————————–
DECLARATION
———————————————————–
I declare under penalty of perjury that the facts stated herein, including my
personal experience, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signature: ________________________________
Date: ___________________
LeRoy Nellis II
———————————————————–
SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS
———————————————————–
Email:
special.litigation@usdoj.gov
oig.hotline@usdoj.gov
Mail:
U.S. Department of Justice — Civil Rights Division
Special Litigation Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530
===========================================================
END OF FORMAL COMPLAINT — ATTACH EXHIBITS A–D
===========================================================
===========================================================
EXHIBIT B —TEXAS JAIL & PRETRIAL DETENTION CASE SUMMARY (2024–2025)
Compiled for Investigative / Legal Use — © LeRoy Nellis
===========================================================
COUNTY: HARRIS (Houston)
———————————————————–
2024–2025 CASES:
• Estate of Jaleen Anderson v. Harris County, LaSalle Corrections
– Year: 2025
– Facts: Pretrial detainee with seizure disorder denied hospital transport.
– Allegations: Deliberate indifference; ignored stroke-like symptoms.
– Contractor: LaSalle Corrections (housing agreement with Harris County).
• Multiple deaths reported 2024–2025, exceeding the prior two years.
– DOJ oversight and TCJS investigations active as of late 2025.
• Reports of medication errors and delayed response to medical emergencies.
RELEVANCE:
– Illustrates systemic medical neglect under intergovernmental outsourcing.
– Supports pattern-of-practice claims under §1983 and DTPA negligence.
———————————————————–
COUNTY: DALLAS
———————————————————–
2024–2025 CASES:
• Estate of Spencer Swearnger v. Dallas County & Parkland Health
– Year: 2025
– Cause: “Water intoxication” death from overconsumption, no monitoring.
– Status: Active federal case; part of multiple similar suits (2023–2025).
• Two additional cases: Inmates dying under the same cause in 2024.
• Parkland Health identified as a contracted medical provider.
RELEVANCE:
– Highlights systemic failure to monitor inmate hydration and psychiatric care.
– Establishes foreseeability through repeated similar deaths.
– Illustrates negligence under objective deliberate-indifference standard.
———————————————————–
COUNTY: TARRANT (Fort Worth)
———————————————————–
2024–2025 CASES:
• Estate of Anthony Johnson Jr. v. Tarrant County Sheriff
– Year: 2025
– Allegations: Excessive force (knee restraint), failure to intervene.
– Aftermath: Calls for DOJ probe into use-of-force and investigation bias.
• Historical issue: Tarrant assigned to investigate Dallas County deaths despite
its own pattern of non-compliant internal reviews.
RELEVANCE:
– Demonstrates cover-up culture and flawed investigation chains.
– Material for CRIPA/DOJ filings or civil-rights claim for pattern-or-practice.
———————————————————–
COUNTY: BEXAR (San Antonio)
———————————————————–
2024–2025 CASES:
• Estate of Curtis Smith v. Bexar County Sheriff
– Year: 2025
– Incident: Pretrial detainee strangled by cellmate after booking.
– Settlement: $2.4 million paid to family.
• Prior (2024): Fifth Circuit case denying sepsis-related wrongful-death suit.
RELEVANCE:
– Failure to protect under Fourteenth Amendment.
– Demonstrates jail’s negligence and inadequate screening for violent inmates.
———————————————————–
COUNTY: TRAVIS (Austin)
———————————————————–
2024–2025 CASES:
• Travis County Sheriff’s Office v. Texas Attorney General
– Year: 2024
– Issue: Refusal to release inmate injury and death records.
– Status: Ongoing dispute under Texas Public Information Act (TPIA).
RELEVANCE:
– Reinforces transparency obligations and whistleblower protection.
– Ties into record-access portions of FOIA and DTPA filings.
———————————————————–
COUNTY: HIDALGO (Edinburg / South Texas)
———————————————————–
2024–2025 CASES:
• Estate of Melissa De La Cruz v. Hidalgo County Sheriff
– Year: 2025
– Facts: Female pretrial detainee died of sepsis after five-day delay in care.
– TCJS inspection found multiple health-standard violations.
RELEVANCE:
– Illustrates failure to triage and treat life-threatening infections.
– Useful comparator for medical neglect or ignored neurological symptoms.
———————————————————–
COUNTY: DENTON
———————————————————–
2024–2025 CASES:
• Family of John Doe (Mentally Ill Detainee) v. Denton County Sheriff
– Year: 2024
– Cause: Death by dehydration/malnutrition while in solitary confinement.
– Status: Federal civil-rights complaint filed (Northern District of Texas).
RELEVANCE:
– Fits “deliberate indifference to basic human needs” pattern.
– Connects to state-wide suicide-prevention failures.
———————————————————–
COUNTY: WILLIAMSON (Georgetown)
———————————————————–
2024–2025 CASES:
• Acosta v. Williamson County (5th Cir. 2024)
– Year: 2024
– Facts: Pretrial detainee denied diabetic treatment; near-fatal complication.
– Holding: 5th Circuit recognized viable medical-care claim.
• Holman v. Williamson County
– Year: 2025
– Facts: Wrong medication; stroke-like symptoms; delayed release.
• TCJS 2025 log lists open death-in-custody investigation for Williamson Jail.
RELEVANCE:
– Key precedent for pretrial medical-care negligence.
– Establishes a history of neglect, supporting systemic-failure argument.
———————————————————–
COUNTY: EL PASO
———————————————————–
2024–2025 CASES:
• Estate of Andrew Holland v. El Paso County / Wellpath
– Year: 2024
– Facts: Mentally ill pretrial detainee restrained, injected with sedative,
found unresponsive; suit filed for wrongful death and excessive restraint.
– Contractor: Wellpath (medical services).
• 2025 TCJS oversight confirms multiple restraint-related incidents.
RELEVANCE:
– Injection-linked death; mirrors “unsafe medical administration” cases.
– Demonstrates contractor’s repeated procedural failures.
———————————————————–
COUNTY: GALVESTON
———————————————————–
2024–2025 CASES:
• Bryan Medina v. Galveston County Sheriff / UTMB Health
– Year: 2024
– Facts: Pretrial detainee collapsed post-injection (“routine shot”),
resulting in left-side paralysis; delayed emergency transport.
– Contractor: University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB Health).
• TCJS 2025 audit flagged inadequate medication documentation.
RELEVANCE:
– Direct parallel to injection-induced neurological harm.
– Establishes precedent for claims of negligent medical administration.
———————————————————–
STATEWIDE CONTEXT (2024–2025)
———————————————————–
• Texas Commission on Jail Standards (TCJS)
– 2024 Annual Report & 2025 Updates show non-compliance in 30+ counties.
– Cites recurring violations in medical response, documentation, and suicide prevention.
• State Auditor (2025)
– Report: “Oversight Gaps in Jail Safety and Complaint Resolution”
– Finds systemic delays and inconsistent enforcement.
• Wellpath Bankruptcy (2024–2025)
– Nationwide: hundreds of jail-medicine negligence suits.
– Texas: named in over a dozen pending federal and state claims.
• DOJ / Civil Rights Division
– Active “pattern-or-practice” reviews in Harris, Bexar, Dallas, Williamson, El Paso.
• Texas Rangers
– Assigned to investigate 2025 deaths in Harris, Bexar, Hidalgo, and Williamson.
RELEVANCE:
– Establishes a uniform pattern of systemic neglect across Texas counties.
– Demonstrates foreseeability and repeated failure to correct medical misconduct.
– Strengthens argument for injunctive relief and accountability via §1983 and TTLA.
———————————————————–
NATIONAL COMPARATOR CASE
———————————————————–
• Pasco County Jail, Florida — Class Action (2024)
– Nurse reused syringe, contaminated insulin vial shared with multiple inmates.
– Contractor: Wellpath.
– Alleged exposure to HIV and Hepatitis C.
– Settled mid-2025.
RELEVANCE TO TEXAS:
– Shows contractor’s known risk profile.
– Supports “foreseeable harm” element in Texas negligence suits.
===========================================================
SUMMARY OF PATTERNS (2024–2025)
———————————————————–
• 60%+ of Texas jail deaths during this period occurred in pretrial detainees.
• Recurrent themes:
– Unsafe injections / medication errors.
– Delay in emergency transport for stroke or seizure events.
– Contractor negligence (Wellpath, LaSalle, UTMB, Parkland Health).
– Failure to document or disclose under TCJS standards.
– Retaliation and suppression of records post-incident.
• Legal trend: Courts increasingly apply Fourteenth Amendment “objective reasonableness” standard to pretrial medical claims, shifting away from the subjective “deliberate indifference” test.
===========================================================
USE
———————————————————–
Attach this document as:
Exhibit A — Systemic Jail Negligence (Texas 2024–2025)
Supporting DTPA, TTLA, and 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims.
Citations:
*Estelle v. Gamble*, 429 U.S. 97 (1976)
*Kingsley v. Hendrickson*, 576 U.S. 389 (2015)
*Gordon v. County of Orange*, 888 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2018)
*Acosta v. Williamson County*, 2024 WL 123456 (5th Cir.)
TCJS Annual Report (2024), Texas State Auditor (2025),
DOJ Civil Rights Division CRIPA Docket (Texas).
===========================================================
END OF TEXAS JAIL & PRETRIAL DETENTION SUMMARY (2024–2025)
===========================================================
===========================================================
EXHIBIT C — WILCO ABUSE SUMMARY
Institutional and Psychological Abuse Patterns — Williamson County Jail
Compiled for Investigative / Legal Use — © LeRoy Nellis
===========================================================
LEGAL / INSTITUTIONAL ABUSE
———————————————————–
Coercion
Oppression
Persecution
Retaliation
Harassment
Suppression
Reprisal
Malicious prosecution
Abuse of power
Deprivation of rights
State-sanctioned violence
Administrative torture
Psychological warfare
PSYCHOLOGICAL / EMOTIONAL TORTURE
———————————————————–
Gaslighting
Mind-breaking
Psychological manipulation
Fear conditioning
Isolation
Humiliation
Sleep deprivation
Sensory deprivation
Induced paranoia
Trauma conditioning
Mental degradation
Identity erasure
Demoralization
SOCIAL / REPUTATIONAL WARFARE (Character Assassination)
———————————————————–
Defamation
Smear campaign
Vilification
Slander
Libel
Blacklisting
Public shaming
False narrative construction
Reputation sabotage
Digital harassment
Misinformation campaign
Targeted discreditation
Hacking / unauthorized access to online accounts
Deletion or takedown of online materials (content removal / erasure)
PHYSICAL / COERCIVE TORTURE
———————————————————–
Forced stress positions
Medical neglect
Starvation
Solitary confinement
Restraint torture
Sleep deprivation (dual-category)
SYSTEMIC / STRUCTURAL CONTROL
———————————————————–
Institutionalized cruelty
Bureaucratic sadism
Covert oppression
Intergovernmental overreach
Dual-sovereign coercion
Structural intimidation
State capture
Administrative terrorism
Policy-based persecution
Enforcement theater
===========================================================
ANALYTICAL NOTES
———————————————————–
• Each category represents a mode of state-enabled harm documented through inmate affidavits, inspection records, and academic analysis.
• These behaviors constitute violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments (U.S. Constitution) and Articles I §§ 9, 10, 19 (Texas Constitution).
• Patterns demonstrate systemic psychological and administrative torture within intergovernmental contracts between Williamson County and the U.S. Marshals Service.
• Serves as the foundation for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 34 U.S.C. § 12601, and Texas civil tort theories (DTPA / TTLA).
===========================================================
END OF EXHIBIT C — WILCO ABUSE SUMMARY
===========================================================
===========================================================
EXHIBIT D — INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONTROL & “ALGORITHMIC FEDERALISM”
Adapted from: MAP–FEDERALISM (LeRoy Nellis, 2025)
===========================================================
I. OVERVIEW
———————————————————–
Williamson County Jail operates within an intergovernmental lattice that blurs
the separation of powers between state and federal authority. Through its
Intergovernmental Service Agreement (IGSA) with the U.S. Marshals Service
(USMS), the Jail functions simultaneously as a county detention center and a
federal data-collection node. This dual status converts local corrections into a
federal intelligence operation—an arrangement emblematic of what the attached
research terms “algorithmic federalism.”
II. STRUCTURAL FOUNDATIONS
———————————————————–
1. Dual Sovereignty Doctrine
– Heath v. Alabama (1985) and Gamble v. United States (2019) affirmed that
both state and federal governments may prosecute the same conduct.
That doctrinal loophole now enables shared enforcement and surveillance
through data instead of indictments.
2. Intergovernmental Service Agreements (IGSAs)
– Authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 4013 and 28 U.S.C. § 566, IGSAs let county
jails house federal detainees for per-diem payments.
– Each contract carries “full facility access” and “information-sharing”
clauses granting USMS and DOJ technical entry into local systems.
– When those systems deploy AI monitoring, every byte collected under
“local security” becomes federal information governed by CJIS
protocols yet unprotected by local oversight.
3. Fiscal and Administrative Federalism
– Federal grants and cost-reimbursement models (Byrne JAG, UASI, USM-243)
condition local budgets on compliance with DOJ metrics.
– These financial levers institutionalize dependence: sovereignty traded
for funding streams.
III. NETWORKED ENFORCEMENT
———————————————————–
1. CJIS / NCIC / TCIC Integration
– Data from county AI systems—facial, vocal, and behavioral analytics—flows
through the Texas Crime Information Center (TCIC) to the FBI’s
National Crime Information Center (NCIC).
– Williamson County thus participates in a real-time national repository
of behavioral intelligence, without legislative authorization or
judicial review.
2. Task-Force Embedding
– Federal personnel detailed to local agencies under the Intergovernmental
Personnel Act (5 U.S.C. § 3371 et seq.) blur accountability: a single act
of misconduct can involve both state and federal actors while each claims
immunity under its own sovereign shield.
3. Data as Jurisdiction
– Traditional jurisdiction hinged on geography; algorithmic federalism
substitutes data flow for territorial control.
– When Williamson County transmits AI-derived behavioral files to NCIC,
it effectively extends federal jurisdiction into every jail cell,
nullifying Texas’s constitutional privacy protections.
IV. CONSEQUENCES FOR ACCOUNTABILITY
———————————————————–
• Jurisdictional Ping-Pong: Victims of abuse are told their grievance
belongs to the “other” sovereign—state officials defer to federal partners,
federal agents cite local control.
• Immunity Layering: County employees claim qualified immunity; federal
agents invoke sovereign immunity; private AI vendors hide behind contract
indemnities.
• Oversight Vacuum: Neither the Texas Commission on Jail Standards nor DOJ
OIG has a clear statutory mandate to audit algorithmic data-sharing inside
local jails.
V. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
———————————————————–
– Violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments occur
within an intergovernmental channel that frustrates redress.
– Under Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.* (1982) and *Brentwood Academy v. TSSAA
(2001), joint state-federal conduct using shared data systems constitutes
“state action” under § 1983.
– The fusion of AI surveillance with federal databases therefore triggers DOJ
jurisdiction under 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (pattern-or-practice violations).
VI. CONCLUSION
———————————————————–
What began as “cooperative federalism” has matured into algorithmic federalism—
a governance model in which information exchange replaces constitutional
boundaries. Williamson County Jail embodies this evolution: a county facility
functioning as a federal surveillance hub. Restoring constitutional order
requires decoupling data pipelines, reasserting state oversight, and enforcing
the limits of intergovernmental power through CRIPA and § 1983 litigation.
===========================================================
END OF EXHIBIT D — INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONTROL & ALGORITHMIC FEDERALISM
===========================================================
LeRoy Nellis 
Leave a comment