IN THE COUNTY COURT
OF ECTOR COUNTY
ALLIE JARAMILLO
Appellant
VS Cause NO-2022-001, 2022-002,
2022-003, 2022-004
CITY OF ODESSA ANIMAL CONTROL
Appellee
David C. Jones: City Attorney
Bar#24110838
Dcjones@odessa-tx.gov
J. Kevin Mckethan: City Lead Attorney
Bar#24048650
Jmckethan@odessa-tx.gov
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY OF JUDGEMENT PENDING APPEAL AND
MOTION TO STAY PENDING CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Defendant-Appellant, Allie Jaramillo, to order a stay pending the appeal of the municipal
judgement entered into record on February 17, 2023, which instructs the City of Odessa Animal
Control to euthanize four of the appellant's dogs, Tiger, brindle colored tan male, Shadow, black
brindle colored male, Betty, brown bindle colored female, and Lucy, tan colored female. I also
ask the court to stay the judgement while considering this motion.
Appellant was denied her civil rights of an appeal of the dangerousness determination due to
the city's failure to follow the statue of the Texas Health & Safety Code subsection 822.042
which gives a written determination to the owner allowing the owner to appeal the
determination and present her case. Animal control, under oath, admitted to not following
procedure of the statue due to the lack of documentation to conduct a proper investigation,
1
which is the sworn statements, which also means that the actual seizing of the dogs was also
unlawful.
2
Dogs placed in 10-day quarantine, which the appellant did try and pay fees and pick up her
property, but she was denied showing no cause such as a court order of warrant. Texas Health
& Safety Code subsection 822.0423 states that after the court receives a report under
subsection 822.0422 ( which this section only applies to a county with a population of
2,800,000 or to a county that has adopted this section for it to be governed by, which Ector
County does not qualify for either of these, therefore it does not apply) or on application under
subsection 822.042(c) ( is on application of any person, county court or municipal court finds,
after notice and hearing as provided by subsection 822.0423, that the owner of a dangerous
dog has failed to comply with subsection (a) or (b) shall seize the dog, which again this case
does not fall under this category either, because of no notice or hearing given), shall set a
hearing to either determine the dog dangerous or whether the owner has complied or not, this
hearing is to be held no later than the tenth day of impoundment. The appellant did not receive
any notice of a court hearing until day 14 of impoundment and the hearing was not until day 24
of impoundment which was on December 30,2023, therefore the court had not jurisdiction to
hear a court case that is not filed within the allotted time frame that is allowed by the statue.
Courts uphold such statue deadlines to validate legislature power and to ensure efficient
resolutions.
A report was made to the animal control officer about the alleged bites, therefore the
officer was obligated to follow up with an investigation, but without proper documentation to
pursue a proper investigation, the officer decided to make a sworn statement to the court
notifying the court of the alleged incident to ask the court to deem the dogs dangerous and for
noncompliance of owning a dangerous dog. Owner was not informed she owned a dangerous
dog and was only aware of quarantine of the dogs.
Animal control admitted the owner surrender forms into evidence during trial. There is
clear evidence of the validity of the form by the owner’s claim of duress that was caused by the
owner’s employer on scene, who was called by the animal control officer against the owner’s
wishes and despite her claiming the dogs 100%. The owner informed animal control before the
contract of euthanasia was carried out about the duress and redacted her signature because
she did not want to surrender her dogs, and that she would pick up her dogs at the end of
quarantine and that she would appeal a dangerous dog determination upon receiving one if
necessary because she had read the state statues, and that she just wanted her dogs home and
to not inform or involve her employer any further in this personal matter, for fear of losing her
job. Animal control obviously acknowledged email because dogs were placed into quarantine at
the facility and also alerted the owner’s employer of such, because she was terminated.
Witness testimony was heard and the identification of the dogs involved in the alleged
incidents was done by the city attorney showing the witnesses pictures of four dogs and asking
them which one was the dog that had bitten them, but all four pictures were only of the
owners four dogs, and there are no sworn statements to compare the testimony too. The
witnesses all identified one dog, which was Shadow, and no other definite ones were pointed
out.
3
4
All alleged victims were taken to a medical professional and the injuries were all classified
as superficial, requiring no medical treatment. Animal control continues to say dogs are
aggressive, but that is unfamiliar territory and people, despite the initial officer report that
states the dog's temperament changed once all commotion was done and they are in the
facility and that they will take affection.
The judge rendered judgement of noncompliance ordering euthanasia of all four dogs, with
no official determination of dangerousness given and no reliable identification of the dogs, and
for wounds that did not require any medical treatment, only the usual observation for signs and
symptoms of infection, as for any wound is, based on the questionable owner surrender form
that contained the word dangerous in the form, which legislature also does not permit
according to the statue.
STATEMENTS
1. The procedural due process failure
Legislature wrote the statue and how each step should be followed to ensure that the
owner's rights are protected as well as the alleged victims. Dogs are deemed as property in
eyes of the law; therefore, officials must follow guidelines before they can take a citizen’s
property from them and deprive them of this property for any amount of time U.S. Cont.
amend. XIV § 1. Animal control admits to procedural due process failure because they can
not provide sworn statements to do the proper investigation that is called for in the statue,
Tex. Health & Safety Code § 822.0421(1) & (2). This failure denied the owner her rights to
appeal a determination and present her case. Owner’s rights were violated on scene with
lack of sworn statements, Tex. Const. Art. I, § 9. Owner asked for sworn statements or
description several times and her request denied or ignored, before she was coerced into
the owner surrender form. 18 U.S. Code § 242 makes it a crime for any person acting under
the color of law, statue, or rule, that can be punishable by fines or prison.
2. Time frame of any determination or court appearances not met by the city
The statue states that a hearing must be conducted no later than day 10 of impoundment,
Tex. Health & Safety Code § 822.0423(c). Deadlines are established by legislature to
Ensure effective resolutions for legal matters, Tex. Fam. Code § 84.001(a), (requiring court
To set a hearing for a protective order within a certain time frame). Courts regularly
Uphold deadlines as a valid exercise of legislative power, Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs. V.
Dickensheets, 274 S.W.3d 150, 154-59 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist] 2008, no pet.) The deadline by
which a court must conduct a hearing under section 822.042(c) is not unlawful statutory restriction
on the court’s authority thus it is not on the animal control authority to issue the notice in time for
court to schedule accordingly, Opinion No. KP-0284, Texas Office of the Attorney General (2019).
5
3. Legislature provides two different options of notification to the court in this case
There are two ways that the statue shows why a court would be notified with a complaint
from anyone including an animal control officer. The first way is detailed in Tex. Health & Safety
Code §822.002(a)(1) &(2)(b), which both entail the injuries to be described as serious, such as m
mauling, tearing, or ripping of the flesh or death of a person. The alleged bites were classified by a
medical professional as being superficial requiring no medical treatment, thus this section of
statue to notify the court of an incident is nullified for this case. The second way that the legislature
states that a court is notified this way is by § 822.0422(a), which this section states that it is for a
county of more than 2,800,000 population, to a county in which the commissioners court has
entered an order electing to be governed by this section, or to a municipality in which the
governing body has adopted an ordinance electing to be governed by this section, and Ector
County does not qualify under any of these provisions, thus making this section obsolete to this
case. The report was made to the animal control authority, and it is their duty to investigate these
reports as set forth in section 822.041 (a)(2). Odessa City Ordinances does not include any sections
that governs dangerous dogs and the procedure, it only entails a vicious animal section which c
contraindicates the Texas statue, because it says any animal that has bitten a human being, which
does not include any degree of severity, but it does give the procedure of obtaining sworn
complaints with description and an initial hearing of a control panel to determine the
dangerousness. With this route there has to be other incidents of aggression noted on record to
establish the viciousness, of which there was none, and these pups were only ten months old,
Odessa City Ordinances Art. 2-2 § 2-2-1. As stated, before, injuries were classified as being
superficial in severity.
4. Fees and requirements cannot be imposed onto a citizen without due process of the law
Citizens cannot impose fees and requirements on other citizens unless it has probable cause like a
sworn statement or a court order. It is unconstitutional to do this without giving due process to the
citizen so that citizen may defend against. Animal control was responsible for giving a written copy of a
determination which would show probable cause and the owner would have a chance to defend.
5. Validity of owner surrender form was in question, making it inadmissible for evidence
The owner surrender form that was signed by the owner on scene should be inadmissible in court,
because the owner redacted her signature claiming duress, which was caused by the animal control
officer calling the owner’s employer to the scene despite her objections and claiming ownership of the
dog. A contract is defined as an offer and acceptance, the offer was to owner surrender to avoid
quarantine fees at local vet or decapitation fees. Consideration is a legal concept that describes
something of value in exchange for a performance or a promise of a performance, Contract Law of Texas,
definitions and terms. Since there was an alleged incident involved, the owner surrender form holds
different value than when a person takes their pet in to voluntarily surrender. The duress was caused by a
third party,
6
That third party would not have been there if the animal control officer had not called the employer.
Owner informed the animal control facility within hours of signing the form to inform them that she was
forced to sign the papers to surrender in order to keep her job but she did not want to surrender and if
the dogs were not euthanized at that point to please halt efforts to euthanize because she was claiming
her dogs and wanted the dogs and that she will appeal a dangerous dog determination when and if she
received one, but do not involve her employer in her personal business again because she would lose
her job. Animal control evidently questioned the validity because the animals were placed into
quarantine at the facility instead of euthanizing as they had told the owner, plus animal control initiated
the court appearance and animal control also informed owner’s employer of the email because it
resulted in the owner losing her job, which only strengthened the owner’s allegations of duress being
placed on her to sigh the surrender forms on scene. The judge entered judgement stating that this court
had no jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the owner surrender form, affirming that the form is not
valid until a court of law establishes it, but the judge allowed it into evidence. The judgement was made
stating that owner knew she was an owner of a dangerous dog on Dec. 8, 2023, because the owner
surrender form that was signed under duress contained the word dangerous in the form, but no copy
was given to the owner to file any kind of appeal with it. The legislature states a written determination
will be given after a proper investigation is done by animal control, which would incorporate the
presence of sworn statements being completed.
6. Identification of the dog by witnesses is leading and unreliable.
Since there are no sworn statements that contain a description of the dog that was involved in any of
the alleged bites, there is nothing to compare it to and nothing for the owner to defend against. City
attorney showed the witnesses under oath four pictures of a dog and asked them to choose which dog
was involved in the incident, which all four pictures were of the owner's dogs in custody, which is
leading the witness to pick one of the owner's dogs as the one that was involved. With no prior
statement that identifies the dog along with the leading identification introduced by the attorney makes
the identification unreliable.
7. Owner not allowed to present her side or any evidence that defended her dogs.
Since the judge entered a judgement that the court had no jurisdiction to deem dogs dangerous because
the hearing must be of an appeal nature from the owner but due to the city’s admission of failure to
follow procedure on a written determination of dangerousness, therefore denying the owner an appeal
to the determination. So, it was agreed by all three parties involved that there was no official
determination made, therefore no justifiable grounds to order compliance on. Court decided that this
was a noncompliance hearing that stemmed from the allegations, that are not backed up with
descriptive sworn statements and from the word dangerous that is in the body of text of the
questionable owner surrender form to be the notification of the owner knowing she owned a dangerous
dog.
7
Argument
The owner of all four dogs did not allow her dogs to roam free, in fact she took preventive
measures to make sure this did not happen, due to her line of work at the time, she knew the
importance of keeping a dog inside of a fenced area. The owner was physically searching the
streets when it was found out that the gate was left ajar by the neighbor kid. The owner
desperately needs her dogs back to forgo any more isolation to her beloved pets by being
detained in the animal control facility. Animal control has violated her rights and admitted to the
violation under oath and the involvement of her employer caused by animal control caused her
to be terminated within hours of the third call to her employer by the officer. There were no
sworn statements, or any evidence presented to the owner upon her request on scene or during
the many contacts that animal control made with her during the following week. It is evident that
sworn statements not used in the seizure of any dog here in Ector County by the admission of
the officer under oath stating that they have not used one for the last ten years, which can
jeopardize many past cases. The case was not filed correctly according to the stature and the
time frame was not met by the city. Citizens are expected to follow the law and abide by time
constraints, and the court is holding the owner to the same time on==constraints that the statue
has detailed, but the city officials do not have to abide by the same rules making this an unfair
and unconstitutional hearing. Injuries obtained by a dog can happen by any dog, especially if
they are not under the control of the owner. The owner is not tolerable of this kind of behavior
and there was no indicator of any dangerousness from the dogs before and just because the
injuries were superficial doesn’t make it alright either. The violations that animal control inflicted
onto the owner are unjust and unfair. Animal control does not issue a total of 39 citations and
call citizens employers on multiple occasions to the point of termination. The harassment that
the owner endured for the seven days afterwards when animal control would follow her and
question her neighbors and leave citations on her gate is uncalled for and unprofessional. The
court entered a judgement on circumstances that are not included in the statues and deemed
the actions of the officer's violation of owner's civil rights okay by entering a judgement on the
case. The owner will suffer irreparable harm if judgement is not stayed pending the outcome of
the appeal, because there is no replacing a beloved pet when it is euthanized, and the court has
ordered all four of her pets to be euthanized despite no reliable identification and only one dog
identified at all. The power that the court exhibited over the legislature’s true meaning of the
statues by allowing such violations to occur and admitted to under oath brings the question of
order into question. A stay of judgement will not harm the city in anyway pending appeal
decision. The law is the law and when violations occur, they should be remedied to block any
further harm.
8
9
Conclusion
The owner/appellant prays that this court renders a stay pending the outcome of this appeal
and pending the consideration of this stay and any just judgement that the court deems fit to
remedy the violations and harm caused by the illegal detainment of her dogs, which no doubt
has caused some emotional harm to the owner as well as to the dogs, thinking that they have
been abandoned. The owner thanks the court for considering this stay.
Respectfully
Allie Jaramillo
03/24/2023
1512 W 3rd St.
Odessa, Texas 79763
Dogsbeforefriends@gmail.com
10
UNSWORN DECLARATION
(Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Section 132.001)
I declare under penalty of perjury that all information in the attached document titled Motion to Stay
Pending Appeal/Motion to Stay Pending Consideration of Motion, is true and correct,
Signed in Ector County, Texas on this date 03/26/2023
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allie Jaramillo
D.O.B. 06/09/1974
1512 W 3rd St.
Odessa, Texas 79763
11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
As required by TARP 6.3 and 9.5(b), (d), (e), I certify that I have served this document on all parties—
which are listed below—on 3/26/2023 vis e-file system.
City of Odessa Animal Control
Khendricks@odessa-tx.gov
David C. Jones- City Attorney
Dcjones@odessa-tx.gov
J. Mckethan—City Attorney
Jmckethan@odessa-tx.gov
Hon. Keith Kidd-Municipal Judge
Yhernandez@odessa-tx.gov
-----------------------------------------------------------
03/26/2023
12
