A Fort Davis man has filed a $50 million federal lawsuit accusing Jeff Davis County officials of prosecuting him without verified evidence, concealing records and coercing him into pleading guilty. The lawsuit also adds as a defendant Shane Ryman O’Neal, Haugen’s own legal counsel in matters related to the county.
Carl Haugen Jr. filed the 112-page complaint without an attorney March 6 in the Pecos Division of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
“This is a $50 million civil rights lawsuit,” Haugen wrote in its opening paragraph. “Plaintiff wrote it himself.”
The complaint names Jeff Davis County, County Attorney D. Glen Eisen, Justice of the Peace Mary Ann Luedecke, County Judge Curtis Evans, Sheriff Victor Lopez, former sheriff’s deputy King Merritt, District Clerk Jennifer Wright and O’Neal as defendants.
The allegations have not been proven in court.
O’Neal characterized the allegations pertaining to him as “irrelevant and false” and described Haugen’s lawsuit as “meritless” in a statement to Big Bend Reporter.
Haugen alleges the case began with five text messages reportedly sent to Paul Harst, then pastor of First Baptist Church in Fort Davis, between January and July 2023. Harst had previously worked for Luedecke at the justice court.
Merritt arrested Haugen on a harassment warrant July 15, 2023. Haugen alleges neither the Sheriff’s Department nor the prosecutor obtained phone records, examined Harst’s phone, traced the messages to an originating number or performed a forensic examination before the arrest.
The lawsuit says the warrant incorrectly named Haugen’s deceased father, Carl Haugen, rather than Carl Haugen Jr.
Haugen alleges Merritt called Luedecke on her personal cellphone immediately after placing him in a patrol vehicle, before reading him his rights or booking him. Luedecke had signed the arrest warrant the previous day.
According to the complaint, Verizon records Haugen later obtained showed no calls from his phone to Harst during the charged period and no text messages during the portion of that period for which records remained available. Haugen contends no party subpoenaed the complete records before Verizon’s retention period expired.
The complaint also alleges Harst told Haugen’s mother that he had received hundreds of messages that kept him awake at night but reported only five messages to law enforcement.
“Either the hundreds existed and were withheld from law enforcement — making Harst’s report itself suspicious — or they did not exist and Harst lied,” Haugen wrote.
Haugen further alleges a Sheriff’s Department report said he used multiple Google Voice numbers, but no investigator, prosecutor or defense attorney sought records from Google to determine whether Haugen had a Google Voice account.
The lawsuit says Haugen independently contacted Google and learned that account information would require a court order. He alleges O’Neal declined to seek one.
Haugen was held at the Hudspeth County Jail, approximately 127 miles from Fort Davis, over a weekend before bail was set. He alleges he was denied prescribed medication and could not follow a medically required diet while jailed.
The complaint says Luedecke set bail at $5,000, about five times the amount a bail company reportedly considered standard for the charge. Haugen alleges she imposed a 500-foot restriction covering Harst, his wife, the church and places they frequented.
Haugen also alleges Luedecke separately told him he could be arrested if he entered the courthouse or Sheriff’s Department and suggested he might not be allowed to visit his family’s Fort Davis Drug Store.
During the bail hearing, Luedecke allegedly said she did not know whether the disputed communications were texts or emails and that she would have to look at them on her phone.
Haugen argues that statement shows the judge who signed the warrant had not established the basic nature of the evidence. Eisen later told Haugen that a recording of the video hearing “does not exist,” according to the complaint.
Haugen retained O’Neal for $5,000 in November 2023. The lawsuit alleges O’Neal did not independently investigate the messages, obtain complete phone records, interview Harst, pursue a change of venue or meaningfully challenge the state’s evidence.
Although a defense attorney cannot unilaterally dismiss a criminal charge — dismissal generally rests with the prosecutor — defense counsel may challenge the charging instrument, file appropriate motions, present exculpatory evidence and ask the prosecutor to dismiss. Haugen alleges O’Neal did not pursue those available options despite acknowledging weaknesses in the case.
The complaint says O’Neal first showed Haugen the state’s evidence March 8, 2024, six days before the plea hearing, during a meeting at a Marfa bar. Haugen alleges O’Neal was drinking beer and did not give him copies of the evidence or access to a computer to compare it with his own records.
Among the evidence were five alleged text messages and two purported online posts, all printed on paper without carrier verification, URLs, screenshots or other identifying information, according to the lawsuit.
Haugen alleges O’Neal later wrote that there were “evidentiary problems with the State’s case” and insufficient proof that the messages came from Haugen.
The complaint says O’Neal nevertheless advised Haugen to accept an offer requiring a guilty plea, a $500 fine and a $1,000 payment to the Food Pantry of Jeff Davis County.
On March 14, 2024, Haugen pleaded guilty to Class B misdemeanor harassment before Evans. He was sentenced to three days in jail, with credit for the time already served, in addition to the fine and food pantry payment.
Haugen claims the plea was neither knowing nor voluntary. He alleges O’Neal did not adequately explain until the night before the hearing that pleading guilty meant admitting under oath that he sent the messages.
“I guess I’ll plead guilty because I don’t know what else to do,” Haugen wrote to O’Neal the night before the hearing, according to the complaint.
The lawsuit says Haugen told O’Neal in court that he did not remember sending the messages. Haugen argues that was not an admission but the answer of someone who had not committed the alleged act and had been denied enough information to disprove it.
Haugen alleges O’Neal told him the plea would carry “no collateral consequences.” The complaint says the conviction later caused Haugen to be barred from Airbnb, affecting his family’s Fort Davis hotel business.
O’Neal has also represented Big Bend Reporter publisher David Flash in criminal matters involving Jeff Davis County that are now central to the separate federal civil rights lawsuit Flash v. Jeff Davis County. O’Neal successfully defended Flash in those cases, which were ultimately dismissed.
Haugen’s lawsuit also accuses county officials of withholding evidence and obstructing his public-information requests.
He alleges Eisen sent the Texas attorney general a letter containing 33 exhibits, at least 23 of which Haugen says were never shown to him during the criminal case. The materials allegedly included the arrest warrant, supporting affidavit, additional witness statements, a purported harassment warning and nine Yelp-review exhibits.
Haugen contends he never received a harassment warning. He argues that if the document existed before his arrest, it should have been disclosed and served; if created afterward, he alleges it may have been used to retroactively justify the arrest.
The complaint says the Yelp materials cannot be found on the First Baptist Church Yelp page and were never preserved through screenshots or verified links. A second harassment allegation involving purported online reviews was dropped as part of Haugen’s plea.
Haugen also alleges Wright denied all 92 categories of a public-information request by claiming her office possessed no responsive records, even though she had previously emailed him documents from the same criminal case.
The lawsuit asserts claims involving unreasonable seizure, excessive bail, denial of access to the courts, due-process violations, denial of medical care, First Amendment retaliation, selective prosecution, malicious prosecution, an involuntary plea, suppression of evidence and failure to provide adequate counsel. It also brings state-law claims against O’Neal for legal malpractice, breach of contract and breach of express warranty.
Haugen acknowledges that some federal claims could be barred while his conviction remains intact. He asks the court to stay those claims while he pursues state habeas corpus relief rather than dismiss them.
No court has ruled that any defendant violated Haugen’s rights.
