Jill Morphis, Shila Borchert, Tommy Hunter, Jennie Flaa, and Mike Picha v. Justin Walton and Mariah Walton, A/N/F P.W.

majority opinion

In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-25-00691-CV

JILL MORPHIS, SHILA BORCHERT, TOMMY HUNTER, JENNIE FLAA, AND

MIKE PICHA, Appellants

JUSTIN WALTON AND MARIAH WALTON, A/N/F P.W., Appellees

On Appeal from the 467th District Court

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. 25-11727-467

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Womack, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION

Sanger Independent School District employees Jill Morphis, Shila Borchert,

Tommy Hunter, Jennie Flaa, and Mike Picha (the ISD Employees) appeal from a trial

court order denying their plea to the jurisdiction in a suit filed by Justin and Mariah

Walton, the parents of a Sanger ISD student who allegedly had been subjected

repeatedly to verbal threats by another Sanger ISD student who attended the same

school and rode the same bus. In three issues, the ISD Employees contend that the

trial court erred by denying their plea to the jurisdiction because (1) the Waltons failed

to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit, (2) the ISD Employees’

immunity from suit for the Waltons’ ultra vires claim has not been waived, and (3) the

trial court’s order requiring the ISD Employees to complete a threat assessment is not

relief envisioned by the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA). We reverse the

trial court’s order and dismiss the Waltons’ suit for want of jurisdiction.

II. BACKGROUND

The Waltons sued the ISD Employees in November 2025, claiming that the

ISD Employees had failed to comply with ministerial duties imposed by

Section 37.115 of the Texas Education Code and the Sanger ISD Board Policy

Manual “after being informed of ‘harmful, threatening or violent behavior’”1 toward

For readability, the record quotations in this memorandum opinion omit formatting in the original, such as boldface type and underlining.

their daughter (Paula)2 “including verbal threats, such as threats to kill [her]; threats of

the use of a weapon, such as statements about knowing where guns are; [and] harmful

statements, such as telling a[] student to kill” herself. They alleged that another

elementary-school student (David) had been threatening to harm their daughter for at

least two years and that the ISD Employees had been aware of the threats since they

had begun but had failed to take sufficient steps to secure Paula’s safety as required by

law and Sanger ISD policy.

The Waltons sought a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction

seeking (1) to have David temporarily removed from the elementary-school campus,

(2) to not allow David on any Sanger ISD buses, and (3) to prohibit David from

attending any of the elementary school’s events or school-sponsored events. The

Waltons also sought a declaration that the ISD Employees had failed to carry out their

ministerial duties according to Texas Education Code Section 37.115 and the Sanger

ISD Board Policy Manual. Further, the Waltons sought attorney’s fees.

The ISD Employees filed a plea to the jurisdiction alleging (1) that the Waltons

had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by failing to first seek relief from

the Texas Commissioner of Education, (2) that each of the ISD Employees is entitled

to governmental immunity from the Waltons’ claims as pleaded,3 and (3) that the

In this memorandum opinion, we use aliases to refer to minors. See generally

Tex. R. App. P. 9.9(a)(3).

The ISD Employees did not challenge the existence of jurisdictional evidence.

Waltons lacked standing to seek injunctive relief that infringes upon a third-party

student’s right to attend school and school events. The Waltons filed a response, in

which they contended that they were not required to exhaust their administrative

remedies before filing suit because “[t]he immediate threats to [Paula’s] safety

constitute irreparable harm that cannot adequately be addressed through

administrative procedures.” They also argued that they had properly pleaded ultra

vires claims against the ISD Employees, for which immunity is waived, because

Education Code Section 37.115 “creates specific, non-discretionary duties regarding

threat assessment and student safety that [the ISD Employees] allegedly failed to

perform after being informed of threatening behavior.”

After a hearing at which the trial court considered the plea to the jurisdiction

and the Waltons’ claim for declaratory relief, the trial court denied the ISD

Employees’ plea to the jurisdiction and ordered the ISD Employees “to perform a

threat assessment, no later than seven business days from the date of th[e] order, of

each threat made by [David] during the 25-26 school year against [Paula] in

compliance with Sanger Independent School District’s Threat Assessment

Procedures.”4 The ISD Employees appealed. At the ISD Employees’ request, we

stayed all trial court-proceedings while considering this appeal.

Attached to and incorporated into this order are two documents that do not appear anywhere else in the record: a document entitled “Threat Assessment Procedures” and a two-page flow chart detailing the threat assessment process. Both contain internal references to Sanger ISD.

III. DISCUSSION

Because it is dispositive,5 we first consider the ISD Employees’ contention that

the Waltons did not plead sufficient facts showing a waiver of governmental

immunity because they failed to plead a proper ultra vires claim.

A. Standard of Review

We review de novo a trial court’s jurisdictional ruling. Tex. Dep’t of Parks &

Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004).

When a defendant challenges whether the plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to

waive immunity, as the ISD Employees have here, we liberally construe the pleadings

in the plaintiff’s favor, considering all factual assertions to be true and looking to the

plaintiff’s intent. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just. v. Rangel, 595 S.W.3d 198, 205 (Tex. 2020).

Even under that liberal construction, the plaintiffs must demonstrate, through the

facts alleged in their live pleading, that immunity from suit has been waived. Doe v.

City of Fort Worth, 646 S.W.3d 889, 897 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2022, no pet.); see

Walker Cnty. ESD No. 3 v. City of Huntsville, 658 S.W.3d 807, 816 (Tex. App.––Waco

2022, pet. denied) (explaining that court must apply facts alleged in pleadings to

A disposition in the ISD Employees’ favor on any of their issues would result in the same disposition: dismissal for want of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Image API, LLC v. Young, 691 S.W.3d 831, 836 n. 20 (Tex. 2024) (noting that proper remedy for improper ultra vires claim is dismissal for lack of jurisdiction); Clint Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Marquez, 487 S.W.3d 538, 545–46, 560 (Tex. 2016) (noting same for exhaustion of administrative remedies); Sealy RG Valley Bldgs., L.P. v. Griffin, No. 13-07-598-CV, 2008 WL 3906408, at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Aug. 26, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding same when relief not available under UDJA).

relevant statutory provisions to determine whether plaintiff pleaded ultra vires claim).

Conclusory allegations alone will not suffice. See Casper v. Tex. Woman’s Univ., No. 02-22-00345-CV, 2023 WL 5617129, at *14 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth Aug. 31, 2023, pet.

denied) (mem. op.).

If the pleadings do not contain sufficient facts to affirmatively demonstrate the

trial court’s jurisdiction but also do not affirmatively demonstrate incurable defects in

jurisdiction, the issue is one of pleading sufficiency, and the plaintiff should be

allowed to amend. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. 2007);

Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226–27.

School-district employees sued in their official capacities do not have immunity

from suit for properly pleaded ultra vires claims. Arlington Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Williams,

No. 02-23-00142-CV, 2023 WL 8643040, at *3 & n.3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

Dec. 14, 2023, no pet. [mand. denied]) (mem. op.); see Franka v. Velasquez, 332 S.W.3d

367, 383 (Tex. 2011) (explaining that ultra vires claims may be brought against

government employees). A valid ultra vires claim must show that an employee failed

to perform a purely ministerial act or acted outside the employee’s discretionary

authority. Jones v. Turner, 646 S.W.3d 319, 325 (Tex. 2022); see Houston Belt & Terminal

Ry. v. City of Houston, 487 S.W.3d 154, 158 (Tex. 2016). Although school-district

employees generally have no discretion to misinterpret the law, “an act within [the

employee’s] discretion is protected by immunity even if it is erroneous.” Jones,

646 S.W.3d at 325.

To avoid a dismissal for want of jurisdiction on an ultra vires claim, a plaintiff

must “allege facts affirmatively demonstrating actionable ultra vires conduct by state

officials.” Matzen v. McLane, 659 S.W.3d 381, 388 (Tex. 2021). The Texas Supreme

Cout has noted that “[i]n an ultra vires case, ‘the jurisdictional inquiry and the merits

inquiry are [often] intertwined.’” Image API, LLC, 691 S.W.3d at 836 n.15 (quoting

Chambers–Liberty Cntys. Navigation Dist. v. State, 575 S.W.3d 339, 345 (Tex. 2019)).

B. Education Code Section 37.115

The Waltons contend that the ISD Employees violated their ministerial duties

under Texas Education Code Section 37.115 and the Sanger ISD Board policy

promulgated pursuant to that section. To understand the gist of their petition in

relation to the statute, it is necessary to recite most of Section 37.115:

(a) In this section:

(1) “Harmful, threatening, or violent behavior” includes

behaviors, such as verbal threats, threats of self harm, bullying,

cyberbullying, fighting, the use or possession of a weapon,

sexual assault, sexual harassment, dating violence, stalking, or

assault, by a student that could result in:

(A) specific interventions, including mental health or

behavioral supports;

(B) in-school suspension;

(D) the student’s expulsion or removal to a disciplinary

alternative education program or a juvenile justice

alternative education program.

(2) “Team” means a threat assessment and safe and supportive

school team established by the board of trustees of a school

district under this section.

(b) The agency,6 in coordination with the Texas School Safety

Center, shall adopt rules to establish a safe and supportive school

program. The rules shall incorporate research-based best

practices for school safety, including providing for:

(1) physical and psychological safety;

(2) a multiphase and multihazard approach to prevention,

mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery in a crisis

situation;

(3) a systemic and coordinated multitiered support system that

addresses school climate, the social and emotional domain, and

behavioral and mental health; and

(4) multidisciplinary and multiagency collaboration to assess

risks and threats in schools and provide appropriate

interventions, including rules for the establishment and

operation of teams.

threat assessment and safe and supportive school team to serve at

each campus of the district and shall adopt policies and

procedures for the teams. The team is responsible for developing

and implementing the safe and supportive school program under

Subsection (b) at the district campus served by the team. The

policies and procedures adopted under this section must:

(1) be consistent with the model policies and procedures

developed by the Texas School Safety Center;

In this section, “agency” refers to the Texas Education Agency. Tex. Educ.

Code § 5.001(1).

(2) require each team to complete training provided by the

Texas School Safety Center or a regional education service

center regarding evidence-based threat assessment programs;

(3) require each team established under this section to report

the information required under Subsection (k) regarding the

team’s activities to the agency;

(4) provide for:

(A) a district employee who reports a potential threat to a

team to elect for the employee’s identity to be confidential

and not subject to disclosure under Chapter 552,

Government Code, except as necessary for the team, the

district, or law enforcement to investigate the potential

threat; and

(B) the district to maintain a record of the identity of a

district employee who elects for the employee’s identity to

be confidential under Paragraph (A);

(5) require each district campus to establish a clear procedure

for a student to report concerning behavior exhibited by

another student for assessment by the team or other

appropriate school employee; and

(6) require that, as soon as safe and practicable after an

administrator or team for a district campus receives

information regarding a threat made against that campus,

including through social media, the administrator or team

immediately provide to each member of the teaching staff,

including teacher’s aides, who may be directly affected by the

threat notice that includes:

(A) a statement of the existence of the threat;

(B) the nature of the threat; and

safety.

(d) The superintendent of the district shall ensure, to the greatest extent practicable, that the members appointed to each team have

expertise in counseling, behavior management, mental health and

substance use, classroom instruction, special education, school

administration, school safety and security, emergency

management, and law enforcement. A team may serve more than

one campus of a school district, provided that:

(1) each district campus is assigned a team; and

(2) in serving a particular campus, the team includes the person

designated to serve as the campus behavior coordinator under

Section 37.0012 for that campus.

(f) Each team shall:

(1) conduct a threat assessment that includes:

(A) assessing and reporting individuals who make threats of

violence or exhibit harmful, threatening, or violent behavior

in accordance with the policies and procedures adopted

under Subsection (c); and

(B) gathering and analyzing data to determine the level of

risk and appropriate intervention, including:

(i) referring a student for mental health assessment; and

(ii) implementing an escalation procedure, if

appropriate based on the team’s assessment, in

accordance with district policy;

(2) provide guidance to students and school employees on

recognizing harmful, threatening, or violent behavior that may

pose a threat to the community, school, or individual; and

(3) support the district in implementing the district’s

multihazard emergency operations plan.

(f-1) Before a team may conduct a threat assessment of a student,

the team must notify the parent of or person standing in parental

relation to the student regarding the assessment. In conducting

the assessment, the team shall provide an opportunity for the

parent or person to:

(1) participate in the assessment, either in person or remotely;

and

(2) submit to the team information regarding the student.

(f-2) After completing a threat assessment of a student, the team

shall provide to the parent of or person standing in parental

relation to the student the team’s findings and conclusions

regarding the student.

(h) On a determination that a student or other individual poses a

serious risk of violence to self or others, a team shall immediately report the team’s determination to the superintendent and, if the

individual is a student, immediately attempt to inform the parent

or person standing in parental relation to the student. The

requirements of this subsection do not prevent an employee of

the school from acting immediately to prevent an imminent threat

or respond to an emergency.

(i) A team identifying a student at risk of suicide shall act in

accordance with the district’s suicide prevention program. If the

student at risk of suicide also makes a threat of violence to others, the team shall conduct a threat assessment in addition to actions

taken in accordance with the district’s suicide prevention program.

(j-1) Materials and information provided to or produced by a

team during a threat assessment of a student under this section

must be maintained in the student’s school record until the

student’s 24th birthday.

(k) A team must report to the agency in accordance with

guidelines developed by the agency the following information

regarding the team’s activities and other information for each

school district campus the team serves:

(1) the occupation of each person appointed to the team;

(2) the number of threats and a description of the type of

the threats reported to the team;

(3) the outcome of each assessment made by the team,

including:

(A) any disciplinary action taken, including a change in

school placement;

(B) any action taken by law enforcement; or

health, special education, or other services;

(4) the total number . . . of, in connection with an

assessment or reported threat by the team:

(A) citations issued for Class C misdemeanor offenses;

(B) arrests;

(D) changes in school placement, including placement

in a juvenile justice alternative education program or

disciplinary alternative education program;

(E) referrals to or changes in counseling, mental

health, special education, or other services;

(F) placements in in-school suspension or out-ofschool suspension and incidents of expulsion;

(G) unexcused absences of 15 or more days during the

school year; and

(H) referrals to juvenile court for truancy[.]

(l) The commissioner may adopt rules to implement this section.

Tex. Educ. Code § 37.115(a)–(d), (f)–(f-2), (h)–(i), (j-1)–(l). Section 37.115 was

enacted in 2019. Act of May 26, 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., ch. 464, § 13, 2019 Tex. Gen.

Laws 868, 876–79.

C. Sanger ISD Board Policy

The Waltons attached to and incorporated into their petition a copy of the

Sanger ISD Board’s policy implemented pursuant to Section 37.115. Regarding threat

assessments, that policy provides, in pertinent part:

In accordance with those procedures, the threat assessment and safe and

supportive team shall conduct threat assessments using a process that

includes:

1. Identifying individuals, based on referrals, tips, or observations,

whose behavior has raised concerns due to threats of violence or

exhibition of behavior that is harmful, threatening, or violent.

2. Conducting an individualized assessment based on reasonably

available information to determine whether the individual poses a threat

of violence or poses a risk of harm to self or others and the level of risk.

3. Implementing appropriate intervention and monitoring strategies, if

the team determines an individual poses a threat of harm to self or

others. These strategies may include referral of a student for a mental

health assessment and escalation procedures as appropriate.

The policy also provides, in accordance with Subsection (h) of Section 37.115,

For a student or other individual the team determines poses a serious

risk of violence to self or others, the team shall immediately report to the

Superintendent, who shall immediately attempt to contact the student’s

parent or guardian. Additionally, the Superintendent shall coordinate

with law enforcement authorities as necessary and take other appropriate

action in accordance with the District’s multihazard emergency

operations plan.

D. The Waltons’ Petition

The Waltons do not contend in their petition that the Sanger ISD Board failed

to implement a threat assessment policy pursuant to Section 37.115, nor do they

contend that the Sanger ISD Board threat assessment policy fails to comport with

Section 37.115’s requirements. Instead, they alleged in their petition that the ISD

Employees failed to follow the Board’s threat assessment policy by failing to conduct

an initial threat assessment in response to the information that David had threatened

Paula.

In their petition, the Waltons specifically allege the following:

• David first threatened to kill Paula during the 2023–2024 year at the school

lunch table. Morphis, the school principal, was made aware of this threat.

• In August 2025, while Paula was riding the school bus, David again

threatened to kill Paula in a note he had passed to her. Another student told

the bus driver, who collected the note, along with other notes David had

passed to Paula. The bus driver turned the notes in to the school. Mariah

Walton spoke with Borchert, the assistant principal, on the phone, and

Borchert informed Mariah that she had spoken to David, who admitted telling

Paula “to ‘go kill herself.’”

• After the school-bus incident, the school put into place a “stay away plan”

that required Paula to stay away from David. The Waltons reported the

incident to the City of Sanger police, who forwarded the information to

Denton County. Denton County then forwarded the information to the

“school law enforcement department.”

• The day after making their report to the Sanger police, the Waltons filed a

police report with the elementary school’s school resource officer, who

forwarded the report to Picha, the Sanger ISD Chief of Police. Picha spoke

with Mariah and told her that he had interviewed David, collected the notes

that the bus driver had obtained from Paula, and filed a police report.

• A little over a week later, the Waltons met with Morphis, Borchert, Picha,

Sanger ISD Superintendent Tommy Hunter, and Assistant Superintendent

Jennie Flaa. Borchert again indicated that David told her he had told Paula “to

kill herself.” The Waltons requested that David be removed from the bus, but

the ISD Employees refused.

• In October 2025, after hiring an attorney, the Waltons “requested a full

bullying investigation for each incident involving” David. Paula and another

student were pulled out of class to give written statements. The other student’s

parent told Mariah that her child had written that on October 20, 2025, she had

overheard David say to a group of children that he was going to kill Paula.

According to that student’s mother, the school had tried to get the student to

change her statement, and Hunter had reached out to the mother, saying, “I’m

begging you and pleading to you to let us ask [the other student] one more

question about her statement.” According to the Waltons, no one at the school

ever made them aware of this October 2025 alleged threat to Paula.

• In a November 2025 conference between the Waltons’ counsel and Sanger

ISD’s counsel, Sanger ISD’s counsel “stated that the school would not take any

steps to put any safety measures in place, including removing [David] from the

bus that [Paula] rides home from school on, until the school could ‘clarify’ the

timeline of the threats and determine when exactly the threat was made.”

At the hearing, the Waltons’ counsel argued that the ISD Employees had

“failed to carry out their ministerial duties by implementing a threat safety plan as

required by the Texas Education Code” and that the Waltons were seeking relief

ordering the ISD Employees to “enact these particular safety measures, which would

be to remove [David] from this campus and place him at a different campus.”7 The

ISD Employees countered that Sanger ISD had already implemented the threat

assessment and safety plan mandated by Section 37.115 by performing the requested

bullying assessment and that the Waltons were effectively challenging the way in

which the ISD Employees had chosen to implement the threat assessment and safety

plan in this particular situation. The ISD Employees contended that they have

discretion in “how they look into these cases, how they follow those policies, [and]

whether or not they’re going to initiate an investigation under those policies.”

The Waltons responded by clarifying that their claim is that the ISD Employees

have a ministerial duty according to Section 37.115 to “implement the safety plan” by

taking action when any kind of threat is made, including reporting to the

superintendent that the employee made an assessment of the threat.8 According to

the Waltons, the ISD Employees failed to perform the required threat assessment

under Section 37.115 because they performed one under a different Education Code

section9 instead. Their counsel argued that the ISD Employees had failed to follow

The Waltons provided no authority to the trial court requiring such relief under Section 37.115, nor do they provide any to this court.

When asked by the trial court what the point would be of ordering that a threat assessment report be made to the superintendent when the superintendent had already been in a meeting about the matter, the Waltons’ counsel stated, “[T]hey have failed to even assess the threat.”

Education Code Section 37.0832 addresses what components must be

included in a school district’s required policy regarding bullying. Tex. Educ.

the Sanger ISD Board policy promulgated pursuant to Section 37.115: “So the

implementation part is what we’re stating they did not do. They have established –

they do, they have a threat assessment team. What they failed to do is implement the

threat assessment team in this particular situation.” Counsel ultimately asked the trial

court “to enforce the district’s policies.”

E. Analysis

When the crux of a purported ultra vires claim involves what a statute required

of the defendant, we must first consider the statute’s proper construction. Image API,

LLC, 691 S.W.3d at 836 n.15; Sw. Bell Tel., L.P. v. Emmett, 459 S.W.3d 578, 583 (Tex.

2015). We have found no authority construing Section 37.115. We therefore look to

familiar principles to construe that section, interpreting it according to its plain

language, in context. See State v. Hollins, 620 S.W.3d 400, 407 (Tex. 2020).

Section 37.115(f) requires a school’s threat assessment team to conduct a threat

assessment for “assessing and reporting individuals who make threats of violence.”

Tex. Educ. Code § 37.115(f)(1)(A). That threat assessment includes “gathering and

analyzing data to determine the level of risk and appropriate intervention.”

Id. § 37.115(f)(1)(B). After performing the threat assessment and determining that the

student “poses a serious risk of violence to self or others,” the team must

“immediately report the team’s determination to the superintendent” and the

Code § 37.0832 (including, in Subsection (c)(7), the requirement to establish procedures for “investigating a reported incident of bullying”).

student’s parent or “person standing in parental relation to the student.”

Id. § 37.115(h).

Subsection (f) is multi-faceted: it requires the team to assess a threat made by

an individual and to report the individual in accordance with the policy promulgated

pursuant to Section 37.115(c). It also requires the team to consider what

interventions might be necessary, including interventions to assist the student who

made the threat. As evidenced by its language and context, the purpose of the statute

is to enhance school safety by requiring that school districts do not simply dismiss

threatening conduct but rather investigate such conduct, determine its seriousness,

and provide appropriate intervention to the person engaging in that conduct, if

necessary, in an attempt to prevent future safety concerns.10

Sanger ISD’s policy promulgated pursuant to Section 37.115 requires the team

conducting a threat assessment to make “an individualized assessment based on

reasonably available information to determine whether the individual poses a threat of

violence or poses a risk of harm to self or others and the level of risk.”11 The team

Section 37.115 was initially passed after the Senate Select Committee on

Violence in Schools and School Security was appointed “following the tragedy that occurred at Santa Fe High School.” S. Comm. on Educ., Bill Analysis, Tex. S.B. 11, 86th Leg., R.S. (2019). The “Author’s/Sponsor’s Statement of Intent” indicates that “[t]he committee studied methods to reduce the likelihood of school violence and reduce security threats, harden facilities, and facilitate mental health resources to schools.” Id.

Although it is unclear if the trial court considered the judgment’s attachments

when making its ruling, we note that the page entitled “Threat Assessment When

must then implement “appropriate intervention and monitoring strategies, if the team

determines an individual poses a threat of harm to self or others.” [Emphasis added.]

The Waltons do not identify the threat assessment team responsible for Paula’s

school, nor do they allege that the ISD Employees are members of that team. But

even if they had so alleged, Section 37.115––and Sanger ISD’s policy promulgated

pursuant to Section 37.115––provides the team members with discretion, once they

have made an assessment, to determine (1) whether the person who has been

reported to them poses a risk of violence or threat of harm to others and (2) what

interventions need to be made, if any. And that is what the Waltons allege happened

here: the ISD Employees investigated David’s alleged threats and had determined as

of the time suit was filed that only a stay away plan was needed unless they could

clarify the timeline of the alleged threats. The Waltons do not explain how the threat

assessment ordered by the trial court would produce a different result or how the

facts they alleged rendered the assessment and investigation that was performed

insufficient. We agree with the ISD Employees that the essence of the Waltons’

complaint is not that the ISD Employees failed to assess David’s alleged threats but

that the Waltons disagree with the outcome of the assessment that was made.

Student Makes Threat to Hurt Others/the School” provides that the first step is “Administrator talks to student & witnesses then determines if a formal team threat assessment needs to be done.” If the administrator does not decide that a formal team assessment needs to be done, then the process requires: “Administrator calls parent to discuss the situation[.] Has counselor visit with the student; Parents are provided with community-based supports.”

Because the facts pleaded by the Waltons do not affirmatively show that the

ISD Employees failed to comply with a ministerial duty by failing to make a threat

assessment according to Education Code Section 37.115, we conclude that the trial

court erred by denying the ISD Employees’ plea to the jurisdiction. See, e.g., Schroeder

v. Escalera Ranch Owners’ Ass’n, Inc., 646 S.W.3d 329, 334–36 (Tex. 2022); Dubose v.

Nelson, No. 09-25-002230CV, 2026 WL 1175152, at *8 (Tex. App.––Beaumont

Apr. 30, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op. on reh’g); Gonzalez v. Harris Cnty. Sheriff’s Civ. Serv.

Comm’n, No. 01-23-00411-CV, 2025 WL 1033748, at *7 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] Apr. 8, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.); Leonard v. City of Burkburnett, No. 02-22-00266-CV, 2023 WL 8940816, at *15 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 28, 2023, no pet.)

(mem. op. on reh’g); Morath v. Kingsville Indep. Sch. Dist., 710 S.W.3d 918, 926 (Tex.

App.––15th Dist. 2025, no pet.); Brown v. Daniels, No. 05-20-00579-CV, 2021 WL

1997060, at *16–22 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 19, 2021, no pet) (mem. op.).

Additionally, because the facts pleaded by the Waltons show that the ISD

Employees––assuming they are part of the threat assessment team appointed under

Section 37.115 and Sanger ISD’s policy––had performed an investigation and

evaluated what action should be taken in response to David’s alleged threats, we

conclude that they are not entitled to an opportunity to replead. See generally Clint

Indep. Sch. Dist., 487 S.W.3d at 559.

Accordingly, we sustain the ISD Employees’ second issue.

IV. CONCLUSION

Having sustained the ISD Employees’ dispositive second issue, we reverse the

trial court’s order, and we dismiss the Waltons’ suit for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex.

R. App. P. 43.2(c).

/s/ Dana Womack

Dana Womack

Justice

Delivered: July 9, 2026

Jill Morphis, Shila Borchert, Tommy Hunter, Jennie Flaa, and Mike Picha v. Justin Walton and Mariah Walton, A/N/F P.W.

Authorities cited

Opinion · public domain