Jeff Davis County Judge Curtis Evans has admitted in a new federal court filing that he issued an order banning journalist David Flash from county property, directed a sheriff’s deputy to arrest him and provided video footage to a website devoted to attacking Flash and people associated with him.
Evans made the admissions in a 30-page answer filed in Flash v. Jeff Davis County, a federal civil rights lawsuit pending in the Western District of Texas.
The filing is Evans’ formal response after claims against him and other Jeff Davis County officials survived the motion-to-dismiss stage.
Evans denies that his actions were retaliation for Flash’s journalism or photography and invokes several forms of immunity. But his answer confirms multiple events at the center of the lawsuit.
“Defendant admits that he: (1) issued an order banning the Plaintiff from the courthouse; (2) directed the bailiff to arrest the Plaintiff and provided footage to a media outlet,” the filing states.
Although Evans’ attorney used the word “bailiff,” the person involved was a sheriff’s deputy. The underlying incident also occurred during a Jeff Davis County Commissioners Court meeting, not a judicial court proceeding.
Evans admits providing footage to anti-Flash website
The recipient of the footage was not a conventional news organization.
The website was created and operated by one person, used the name of Flash’s publication without affiliation and focused on attacking Flash, his journalism and people associated with him.
It did not operate as a general local news outlet, routinely cover the broader community or follow recognizable editorial standards. Its content overwhelmingly centered on one person and those connected to him.
Evans objects in his answer to the lawsuit’s description of the site as a “smear website,” calling the phrase argumentative. He nevertheless admits providing footage while referring to the recipient only as a “media outlet.”
That wording omits the nature and purpose of the site.
The lawsuit says Evans and Sheriff Victor Lopez provided body-camera footage and participated in an interview with the site as part of a broader effort to discredit Flash and undermine his reporting.
Evans now admits that he provided the footage. He denies that doing so was retaliatory or part of a conspiracy.
Evans admits issuing ban and directing arrest
Elsewhere in the filing, Evans admits issuing a ban affecting county property and directing a deputy to take Flash into custody.
The order barred Flash from coming within 300 feet of county buildings, officials and employees.
The ban was later overturned through a writ of habeas corpus. A state district court granted Flash’s habeas application and found that Evans lacked legal authority to issue the order and that it violated Flash’s constitutional rights.
Evans had no lawful authority to impose the ban, whether it is characterized as judicial, executive, administrative or otherwise.
Texas county judges perform separate judicial and governmental functions. As presiding officer of commissioners court, a county judge acts as part of the county’s governing body. That role is distinct from the judge’s authority to hear cases within a constitutional county court.
Evans acknowledges in his federal answer that the ban was overturned.
He also admits giving a verbal order to remove Flash from a June 27, 2025, Jeff Davis County Commissioners Court budget workshop after the habeas court had invalidated the earlier ban.
Flash was grabbed, handcuffed, detained for about 30 minutes and issued a disorderly conduct citation. The citation was later dismissed.
Evans admits the citation failed to identify which subsection of Texas’ disorderly conduct statute Flash supposedly violated.
“Defendant understands that the citation failed to specify what section of the statute was charged,” the filing states.
Texas’ disorderly conduct law contains numerous separate offenses. Evans denies that the failure to identify one demonstrated an absence of probable cause.
Evans claims Flash disrupted meeting
Evans repeatedly denies that Flash was removed or detained because he was photographing public officials or exercising his First Amendment rights.
He says Flash was removed because he was “continuously interrupting and interfering with a public meeting.”
The publicly available video and accounts from news organizations that reviewed it present a different picture.
The entire meeting was livestreamed, and a link to the recording was made available to journalists reviewing the incident. The Texas Tribune and The Big Bend Sentinel both examined video from the meeting before publishing their coverage.
Neither account described Flash repeatedly speaking out of turn, addressing commissioners during proceedings or stopping the meeting.
Flash said he did not address commissioners or anyone else during the proceedings. Any communication from him was made in a whisper, through written notes or in direct response to officials confronting him.
That included an exchange in which Chief Deputy Adriana Ruiloba stood in the narrow path to the door and aggressively told Flash to get out of her personal space as he attempted to leave.
Flash responded that he was trying to exit and that she was blocking the door.
The Sentinel reported that its video review showed Flash speaking in a low voice during the confrontation.
Journalists routinely move to photograph public meetings
Evans’ public criticism focused heavily on Flash moving around the meeting room and taking photographs.
“He was bouncing all over the courtroom, taking photographs during open court,” Evans told The Big Bend Sentinel after the incident.
“It was annoying, it was disruptive, and it was not something you do in court.”
The event, however, was a commissioners court budget workshop, not a judicial proceeding. The fact that the meeting occurred in a room also used as a courtroom did not transform it into a court hearing.
Journalists routinely move around public meetings to photograph different people, subjects and moments from different angles.
A photographer may reposition to capture commissioners speaking, audience reactions, presentations, recognitions and other developments as they occur. That movement is part of ordinary visual reporting and is not, by itself, evidence that a meeting has been disrupted.
Flash said he moved around the room for those purposes while leaving his livestream camera at the back, where county officials had instructed him to place it.
He was not told that he had to remain seated or that still photography was restricted to one location.
Other people also moved around the room during the workshop.
Some attendees went further and actually spoke out of order to propose changing what commissioners were considering.
The county had planned to install one Keep Texas Beautiful community sign. Scott and Melanie Blackmon spoke up to ask whether they could donate the funds for a second sign and proposed a location for it.
Flash did not make that proposal or verbally participate in the discussion.
He sat near the Blackmons and passed a note so he could correctly record the name of the person being honored in connection with the proposed donation. He did not photograph the Blackmons.
Melanie Blackmon had tipped Flash to attend the meeting because the county owed money to a contractor for work connected to a federal grant, but the federal funds had not yet arrived. Commissioners were considering whether to use other county funds to pay the outstanding bill while awaiting reimbursement.
The distinction is significant.
Attendees who verbally entered the discussion and proposed modifying county action were allowed to continue participating. Flash, who did not address the governing body and was documenting the meeting through notes, livestreaming and still photography, was characterized as disruptive.
Neither the Tribune nor the Sentinel, after reviewing video of the meeting, described Flash as speaking over commissioners, addressing the governing body out of order or preventing county business from continuing.
The livestream gave outside journalists an opportunity to assess the alleged disruption for themselves.
Video showed no verbal interruption by Flash
The Sentinel reported that its review of the video showed Flash speaking quietly and attempting to leave the room after an exchange with Lopez and Ruiloba.
As Flash moved toward the exit, Ruiloba stood in the narrow route between the chairs and the door and told him not to enter her personal space.
“Ma’am, I’m trying to walk out the door,” Flash responded.
He also told her she was blocking the exit.
Ruiloba then moved and pointed toward the door.
Flash later returned to photograph Ruiloba. She approached him, took hold of his arm and, with another deputy, handcuffed and removed him.
Flash repeatedly stated that he was not resisting.
The Tribune similarly reported that Flash was photographing the meeting, left the room after being confronted and was detained after returning to photograph Ruiloba.
Those reports were based on the livestream and other video evidence, not solely on Flash’s account.
Other media outlets that reviewed the footage did not characterize Flash as continuously interrupting the proceedings. Their published accounts did not describe shouting over officials, addressing commissioners out of order or conduct that prevented the completion of county business.
That conflict is likely to become a central factual issue in the lawsuit: whether disruption was the actual reason for the detention or a justification applied to constitutionally protected newsgathering activity.
Evans says he cannot remember Sentinel statements
Evans also responded to a defamation claim based partly on statements he made to The Big Bend Sentinel after Flash’s detention.
The Sentinel quoted Evans calling Flash “crazy” and “not suitable for public settings.” Evans also told the newspaper that county officials could pursue additional criminal charges over the incident.
In his federal answer, Evans admits giving the interview but says he cannot remember exactly what he said.
“Defendant does not recall exactly what statements were made to the Big Bend Sentinel and is therefore unable to admit or deny these allegations,” the filing states.
Evans then argues that the statements attributed to him were opinions, were not false and were not defamatory. He alternatively invokes truth as a defense.
His position is therefore that he does not remember his precise statements but that whatever he said was either protected opinion or true.
Evans made similar statements to NewsWest 9 while discussing Flash and the county’s conflict with him. Those remarks provide another source of evidence concerning Evans’ views, recollection and publicly stated reasons for the county’s actions.
Evans also claims Flash is a public figure or limited-purpose public figure who cannot establish actual malice.
Evans raises broad immunity claims
Evans invokes numerous defenses, including absolute judicial immunity, qualified immunity, prosecutorial immunity, legislative immunity, official immunity, governmental immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity.
His answer broadly characterizes the challenged conduct as part of his normal judicial functions.
That claim does not account for the distinction between Evans’ judicial role and his governmental role as presiding officer of commissioners court.
It also does not explain how issuing a ban without legal authority, controlling access to a public governmental meeting, directing deputies, speaking to news organizations or providing footage to a privately operated anti-Flash website constituted judicial adjudication.
The fact that the June 27 budget workshop occurred in a room also used as a courtroom did not transform the commissioners court meeting into a judicial proceeding.
Evans additionally claims that he acted in self-defense and to protect county employees, law enforcement officers and the public. He asserts that reasonable suspicion and probable cause supported his actions and that Flash’s conduct caused his injuries.
The answer does not identify the specific act that justified self-defense or the exact criminal offense that supplied probable cause.
Volokh wrote about claims allowed to proceed
Legal scholar Eugene Volokh wrote in Reason about Magistrate Judge David Fannin’s report and recommendation in the case.
Volokh discussed First Amendment, Fourth Amendment and civil rights conspiracy claims that survived the motion-to-dismiss stage.
He also wrote about allegations that county officials subjected Flash to repeated criminal investigations, discussed playing copyrighted music during public meetings to interfere with monetization and considered a policy allowing officials to deny photography access based on whether coverage was favorable.
Volokh further discussed the claim that Evans and Lopez provided footage to and participated in an interview with the anti-Flash website.
Evans now admits in his own filing that he issued the ban, directed Flash’s arrest and provided footage to what he calls a “media outlet.”
He denies that those admitted actions were retaliatory or part of a conspiracy.
Evans’ answer asks the court to reject Flash’s claims and requests a jury trial.
