Midland County Judge Terry Johnson faces a federal civil rights lawsuit and a separate effort to remove him from office after allegedly posting a political critic’s sensitive personal information on Facebook. The lawsuit claims the information was shared less than 24 hours after Christino Rodriquez, who uses the name “Nino America” online, published federal court records involving Midland County. The allegations have not been proven in court.

Federal lawsuit alleges retaliation

The 26-page federal complaint was filed by Christino Rodriquez against Terry Johnson, the elected county judge in Midland County, Texas. Rodriquez alleges that Johnson retaliated against him because of his criticism of local government and publication of federal court records. The complaint says Johnson posted a 2015 arrest warrant on a personal Facebook page with the caption, “Convicted felon trying to be a player.”

The charges associated with the warrant were later dismissed, and Rodriquez was not convicted in that case. His attorney, James “Trey” Trainor, described the dispute as involving alleged retaliation, abuse of official power and First Amendment concerns. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, lifetime identity-theft protection and credit monitoring, but does not specify a dollar amount.

Sensitive information allegedly remained visible

The lawsuit alleges that the posted warrant displayed Rodriquez’s Social Security number, driver’s license number and date of birth. It claims his home address and telephone number were obscured while the other identifying information remained visible. The complaint argues that the selective redactions support its allegation that the disclosure was intentional.

Trainor said the information may have been obtained through Johnson’s official access or through county personnel acting at his request or direction. He said Rodriquez and his wife are concerned about identity theft and do not know how many people may have saved or shared images of the post. Discussions had begun with the Social Security Administration about whether Rodriquez’s Social Security number could be changed.

Removal petition moves through Texas procedure

A separate effort to remove Johnson began on Aug. 6, when Midland County District Attorney Glenn Harwood filed a petition under the Texas process for removing a county-level elected official. Harwood said the petition must pass through several procedural steps before a removal action can proceed.

The filing is sent to the region’s administrative judge, who may dismiss it or assign it to another judge. An outside prosecutor would then decide whether to pursue the civil removal case. Harwood has stressed that the proceeding is separate from Rodriquez’s federal lawsuit and said he has no role in that litigation.

Midland ISD Trustee Brandon Hodges has asked to intervene. His filing says he is not seeking to replace Harwood or add allegations, but wants to adopt the existing grounds as an independently qualified Midland County resident.

Investigation and public pressure continue

Trainor said he and Rodriquez were interviewed by a Texas Ranger, who asked questions intended to verify whether the identifying information shown online belonged to Rodriquez. The attorney also said subpoenas had been issued to Meta seeking information about when and where the material was posted and potentially viewed.

Harwood acknowledged what he described as a potential criminal case but declined to provide details, saying nothing had occurred publicly on that front. Midland County resident Shandi Williams called for Johnson’s resignation during a Commissioners Court meeting. Midland County Commissioner candidate Steven Villela said elected officials must protect residents’ confidential information.

Judge’s political future is already limited

Johnson lost his reelection bid after failing to advance from the March 3 primary. If he remains in office, his term is expected to end in early 2027, when election winner Jay Marquez is scheduled to take office.

The federal lawsuit and removal petition could therefore shape public accountability even if Johnson’s term ends as scheduled. The legal proceedings will determine whether the alleged disclosure violated Rodriquez’s rights and whether the conduct meets the standard for removing a county official before the end of the term. Johnson and his attorney were contacted for comment.

Summary

The allegations have produced parallel legal and political consequences in Midland County. The federal case focuses on alleged retaliation and exposure of personal data, while the removal proceeding addresses whether Johnson’s conduct warrants ending his tenure early. Both matters remain unresolved.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the federal lawsuit about?

Rodriquez alleges that Johnson retaliated against him for criticizing local government by posting a warrant containing sensitive personal information on Facebook.

What information was allegedly exposed?

The lawsuit says the post displayed Rodriquez’s Social Security number, driver’s license number and date of birth, while other information was redacted.

Could Johnson be removed from office?

A removal petition has been filed, but it must pass through several procedural stages, including review by an administrative judge and a decision by an outside prosecutor.

When is Johnson’s term expected to end?

If he remains in office, Johnson’s term is expected to end in early 2027, when election winner Jay Marquez is scheduled to take office.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

Midland County Judge Terry Johnson faces a federal civil rights lawsuit and a separate effort to remove him from office. The lawsuit alleges he retaliated against political critic Christino Rodriquez by posting his Social Security number, driver’s license number and date of birth on Facebook. The dispute has also prompted a potential criminal inquiry, subpoenas to Meta and calls for Johnson’s resignation. Johnson has not publicly responded to the allegations through his attorney.

Federal lawsuit alleges retaliation and exposure of private data

Christino Rodriquez, who uses the name “Nino America” online, filed a 26-page federal complaint against Terry Johnson. The lawsuit alleges that Johnson used his public position, or directed county personnel to act, to obtain confidential information about Rodriquez after he shared federal court records involving Midland County.

The complaint claims the Facebook post was retaliation for Rodriquez’s criticism of local government. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages, along with other relief including lifetime identity-theft protection and credit monitoring. The filing does not specify a dollar amount.

“The lawsuit is really about retaliation and abuse of power,” attorney James Trainor said, adding that it also concerns the ability of citizens to criticize government without officials using public authority against them.

Details of the Facebook post and disputed redactions

According to the lawsuit, Johnson posted a 2015 arrest warrant on his personal Facebook page less than 24 hours after Rodriquez published the court records. The post included the caption, “Convicted felon trying to be a player.” The complaint states that the charges associated with the warrant were later dismissed and that Rodriquez was not convicted in that case.

The lawsuit focuses on how the document was redacted. Rodriquez’s home address and telephone number were reportedly covered, while his Social Security number and driver’s license number remained visible, along with his date of birth. The complaint argues that the selective redactions indicate the disclosure was intentional. Rodriquez and his wife say they are concerned about identity theft and the possible spread of copied or saved images.

Removal petition advances under Texas law

Midland County District Attorney Glenn Harwood filed a petition on August 6 seeking Johnson’s removal. The filing represents the first step in a Texas process for attempting to oust a county-level elected official, but it does not itself remove Johnson from office.

Harwood said the petition goes to the region’s administrative judge, who may dismiss it or assign it to another judge. An outside prosecutor would then have to determine whether to pursue the civil removal action. Harwood has emphasized that the removal proceeding is separate from Rodriquez’s federal lawsuit and said he has no role in that case.

Midland ISD Trustee Brandon Hodges has sought to intervene. His filing says he wants to ensure the case continues if a legal challenge is raised over Harwood’s dual role as district attorney and as the resident who initiated the proceeding. Hodges is not seeking to replace Harwood or add new allegations.

Investigative steps and public demands for accountability

Trainor said he and Rodriquez were interviewed by a Texas Ranger, who asked questions intended to verify whether the numbers displayed online belonged to Rodriquez. Trainor also said subpoenas were issued to Meta to determine when and where the material was posted and potentially viewed.

Trainor said discussions had begun with the Social Security Administration about whether Rodriquez’s Social Security number could be changed. He also said the full extent of the potential harm remains unknown because investigators do not know how many people captured or retained the information.

The allegations have produced public calls for Johnson to resign. Midland County resident Shandi Williams reportedly called for his resignation during a Commissioners Court meeting. Midland County Commissioner Precinct 3 candidate Steven Villela also said elected officials have a duty to protect residents’ rights and confidential information.

Johnson’s political future and potential legal consequences

Johnson lost his reelection bid after failing to advance from the March 3 primary. If he remains in office, his term is expected to end in early 2027, when election winner Jay Marquez is scheduled to take office.

The federal lawsuit, removal petition and possible criminal inquiry are separate matters with different legal standards and procedures. Harwood acknowledged a potential criminal case but declined to discuss it because nothing had been publicly filed on that front. The proceedings will determine whether the allegations support civil damages, removal from office or further action.

Summary

The allegations against Terry Johnson have developed into parallel federal and state-level proceedings. The civil lawsuit challenges the alleged disclosure as retaliation and abuse of authority, while the removal petition tests whether Johnson should continue serving as Midland County judge. Investigative activity and public pressure are increasing, but the allegations have not been resolved in court.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the federal lawsuit about?

The lawsuit filed by Christino Rodriquez alleges that Terry Johnson retaliated against him by obtaining and posting sensitive personal information after Rodriquez criticized local government.

What information was allegedly exposed?

The complaint says a Facebook post displayed Rodriquez’s Social Security number, driver’s license number and date of birth while other identifying details were redacted.

Could Johnson be removed from office?

A removal petition has been filed under Texas law, but additional procedural steps remain before a civil removal action could proceed. Johnson’s current term is otherwise expected to end in early 2027.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.

Alexander Murdaugh’s federal lawsuit seeking $600,000 in defense costs from former South Carolina court clerk Rebecca “Becky” Hill has been dismissed. U.S. District Judge Richard Mark Gergel ruled that Murdaugh lacked standing because Hill’s alleged misconduct did not cause him to face the murder prosecution or incur legal expenses. The case was dismissed without prejudice, leaving open the possibility of a new claim based on a legally sufficient theory. The ruling follows the South Carolina Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Murdaugh’s murder convictions and order a new trial.

Federal judge rejects claim for defense costs

On Wednesday, August 5, 2026, U.S. District Judge Richard Mark Gergel dismissed a lawsuit brought by Alexander Murdaugh against Rebecca “Becky” Hill. Murdaugh sought to recover $600,000 that he said he spent defending himself against charges that he murdered his wife, Maggie, and his youngest son, Paul. The federal case alleged that Hill’s conduct during the trial violated his constitutional rights.

The judge did not rule that Murdaugh was entitled to recover the money. Instead, the decision focused on whether Hill’s alleged actions legally caused the expenses. The court concluded that Murdaugh would have needed a defense regardless of Hill’s conduct because she did not initiate the charges or conduct the prosecution.

Why the court found no legal standing

Judge Gergel ruled that Murdaugh lacked standing to pursue the claim. In legal terms, the court found that the alleged injury he identified, the cost of his defense, was not sufficiently connected to Hill’s alleged misconduct. The ruling therefore addressed the required relationship between the defendant’s actions and the financial harm claimed by Murdaugh.

“Simply stated, Defendant’s misconduct was not a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s need to fund his defense costs.”

Murdaugh alleged that he liquidated his 401(k) account before trial and used $600,000 for legal representation. The court’s reasoning was that those costs arose from the murder prosecution itself, rather than from Hill’s alleged communications with jurors.

Allegations involving jury communications

Murdaugh sued Hill under a federal civil rights law, alleging that her communications with jurors violated protections under the Sixth and 14th Amendments. Hill was the county clerk involved in the highly publicized murder proceedings. Murdaugh’s lawsuit attributed the need for his legal expenses to what it characterized as improper interference with the jury.

The South Carolina Supreme Court later described Hill’s conduct as “shocking jury interference” when it reviewed the murder convictions. That finding played a central role in the decision to overturn the convictions, but Judge Gergel’s federal ruling determined that the finding did not establish that Hill caused Murdaugh to incur the cost of defending against the original charges.

Murdaugh’s overturned murder convictions

Murdaugh was convicted of killing Maggie and Paul on the family’s hunting estate in June 2021. The case attracted extensive public attention and centered on the prosecution’s allegations that he murdered his wife and son. He later challenged the integrity of the trial, including Hill’s interactions with jurors.

On May 13, the South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously overturned the murder convictions and ordered a new trial. The court cited Hill’s conduct with jurors as “shocking jury interference.” Murdaugh has since returned to court for proceedings concerning the status of the retrial, while the federal lawsuit addressed only his effort to recover defense expenses.

What dismissal without prejudice means

The dismissal was issued without prejudice. That means the court’s ruling does not necessarily prevent Murdaugh from filing another lawsuit, but any new claim would need to present a legally sufficient basis for relief. The decision does not award him the $600,000 and does not require Hill to reimburse his defense costs.

For now, the federal court has rejected the theory that Hill’s alleged misconduct was the legal cause of Murdaugh’s need to fund his defense. Any future case would have to address the standing problem identified by Judge Gergel.

Summary

The federal court dismissed Murdaugh’s lawsuit because the alleged jury interference did not legally cause the defense expenses he sought to recover. The ruling leaves the $600,000 claim unresolved on its merits but requires any future action to overcome the standing issue. Separately, Murdaugh’s murder convictions remain overturned, with a new trial ordered by the South Carolina Supreme Court.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why was Murdaugh’s lawsuit dismissed?

Judge Richard Mark Gergel ruled that Murdaugh lacked standing because Rebecca Hill’s alleged misconduct did not cause him to incur the costs of defending against the murder charges.

How much money was Murdaugh seeking?

Murdaugh sought $600,000, which he said he spent on his legal defense after liquidating his 401(k) account before trial.

Can Murdaugh file another lawsuit?

Because the case was dismissed without prejudice, Murdaugh could file another claim if he can present a legally sufficient theory that addresses the court’s standing concerns.

©2025 News Journos. All rights reserved.