After Temple Attorney CJ Grisham at a Killeen City Council meeting last month ver publicly claimed that city officials had been “served” a lawsuit, there is now a disconnect between the two parties as to whether the city of Killeen has actually been served or not.

As of Friday, federal court records show that none of the six defendants in the $1 million lawsuit have been served and no hearing dates have been set in the case.

The lawsuit alleges that Mayor Debbie Nash-King, City Manager Kent Cagle, Councilwoman Nina Cobb, former Councilman Ken Wilkerson and Assistant Police Chief Alex Gearhart violated the civil rights of several frequent council critics.

Those critics include Anca Neagu, Michael Fornino, Mellisa Brown, Camron Cochran and James Everard, who ran for mayor several years ago.

Cagle has said repeatedly that the city of Killeen would not be considered served unless the mayor or, in her absence, the mayor pro tem is served — although he has also said he believes eventually they will “get it right.”

Grisham, for his part, has said the lawsuit awaits their decision on waiving of formal process, but he still claims it has been served to them.

“I am not going to give them legal advice on what they should or should not do,” Grisham said Thursday. “They are free to ignore that or not but they might want to talk to an attorney .. They have been served with the service of process; they’ve been given the lawsuit.”

Cagle said as of Thursday Nash-King had not been served, which, according to the City Charter, is how he said the city of Killeen would be served the lawsuit.

He said as far as a waiver of service is concerned, the City Council would have to discuss it in executive session.

“We may very well do that,” he said, but said the council hasn’t had a chance to discuss options on accepting the service.

Cagle also said he believes the reason Grisham is doing it this way is because he doesn’t want to pay for a server.

Grisham said Cagle and Nash-King were a “lawless” city manager and mayor. He also said Cagle shouldn’t worry about his or his clients “financial situations.”

Cagle declined to comment about the contents of the lawsuit Grisham filed, other than to say, “When it comes to the right time we’ll do our talking in court.”

Grisham did confirm that neither Wilkerson nor Cobb were served as of Thursday.

Grisham has 90 days from the date of the filing on the complaint in order to have the defendants officially served.

“If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time,” according to Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. “But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.”

Rule Four of the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure sets the guidelines for issuing summonses, which is the next step in a lawsuit after a complaint is filed.

The lawsuit alleges five counts of civil rights violations, especially the First Amendment but also 14th Amendment violation of due process.

The 30-page complaint details alleged violations of freedom of speech against the five defendants.

Particular attention is given to allegations of freedom of speech violations against Fornino, which the document alleges was often interrupted by Nash-King for not being on the agenda. Grisham argues these interruptions violate his First Amendment rights.

It has nine pages dedicated to Fornino, by far the longest complaint.

“During the July 5, 2022 City Council Workshop on economic development, Mr. Fornino mentioned Defendant Wilkerson in his public comments. Defendant Nash-King immediately cut him off saying, ‘sir, we do not call council members out.’ Mr. Fornino was denied his right to criticize elected officials,” according to the lawsuit.

Grisham then cites a 2022 case of Houston Community College System v. Wilson: “Elected representatives are expected to shoulder a degree of criticism about their public service from their constituents and their peers — and to continue exercising their free speech rights when the criticism comes.”

The lawsuit also mentions an incident where Wilkerson got off the dais to confront Fornino after he insinuated that Wilkerson was responsible for a mass shooting that happened at Fort Cavazos. The lawsuit sources the Killeen Daily Herald in the document.

The document provided to the Herald by Grisham during Tuesday’s council meeting is largely not written in typical legal language. It often opines critically against Nash-King and other council members, in one instance calling them “self-appointed kings and queens of the City Council.”

It also refers to Councilman Michael Boyd as a defendant in the body of the text despite him not being listed as a defendant in the cover page of the lawsuit.

Grisham has a probationary license to practice law, according to the State Bar of Texas. After earning his J.D. degree from Appalachian School of Law, he was licensed in Texas on May 4, 2023, according to his profile on State Bar’s “Find a Lawyer” search tool.

The Herald reached out to the State Bar of Texas last week, which could not comment specifically on Grisham’s “probationary license.” It provided a link to this information from the Texas Board of Law Examiners: “The Board is prohibited by both statute and Supreme Court rule from providing any information as to the basis for a person’s probationary license.

“The Texas Supreme Court has the exclusive authority to grant licenses to practice law in Texas. The Board assists the Supreme Court in the licensure process by recommending an applicant to the Supreme Court for admission to the Bar of Texas for either a regular license to practice law, or a probationary license to practice law, once the applicant has met all requirements imposed by statute and Supreme Court rules.

“If a person is recommended for a probationary license to practice law, the person is also subject to conditions with which the licensee must comply. The Board staff monitors the licensee’s compliance with those conditions during the term of the probationary license. The duration, or term, of the probationary license is determined by the Board.

“Once a probationary licensee successfully completes the term of the probationary license, the Board will then recommend that person to the Supreme Court for a regular license to practice law.”

When asked about his probationary license, Grisham said, “My probationary status does not limit me in any way. Why I’m probationary is no one’s business but mine ... I had a felony case yesterday that I successfully argued and there’s no conviction to my client.”

He said he has argued in every federal district court in Texas.

“I am a full fledged, fully licensed attorney,” Grisham said.

The crux of Grisham’s argument is that decorum isn’t being enforced equally at City Council meetings. That people who “suck up” to the mayor and city council get more time while others don’t.

He also argued that during the four minutes people are allotted for citizen comments, there is little the city can do to restrict their speech.

Grisham even asserted you could say “f— you” to the mayor, and that should be allowable at a council meeting during public comment.