Pettitt v. Glen Lineberry & Miami Unified School District: Official Case and Litigation Archive

Prepared From: Federal Complaint filings, motions to dismiss, trial summaries, administrative complaints, correspondence, and related legal materials.

Purpose of Timeline: This chronology organizes the known factual and procedural history relevant to Michelle Pettitt’s claims involving retaliation, unlawful restrictions on school access, injunction proceedings, criminal prosecution, alleged conspiracy and malicious prosecution, and subsequent civil litigation.

I. BACKGROUND CONTEXT PRIOR TO DISPUTE
January 2010 – Maricopa County Civil Verdict Against Glen Lineberry
A Maricopa County jury found Glen Lineberry liable for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract relating to diversion of commissions and funds while serving in a leadership role for art galleries. According to the federal complaint, the jury concluded that Lineberry wrongfully diverted employer commissions to himself and an entity he controlled.

​

Strategic Significance

This event marks the beginning of Pettitt's involvement in matters concerning Principal Glen Lineberry's public conduct and suitability to lead a public school. The information was obtained through lawful means and concerned a matter of legitimate public interest involving a government employee entrusted with the supervision of children. The timing is significant because it predates every restriction, complaint, injunction, criminal charge, and prosecution that followed. It establishes that Pettitt's actions originated from concerns regarding public accountability rather than any preexisting dispute with the school district.

March 2010 – Entry of Final Judgment
The Maricopa County Superior Court entered judgment against Lineberry and his then-wife in excess of $7 million.

Post-2010 – Bankruptcy Proceedings
Subsequent bankruptcy proceedings allegedly determined that portions of the judgment were nondischargeable due to findings involving fraud, defalcation, embezzlement, or larceny.

Strategic significance

Plaintiff later publicly referenced these events in criticizing Lineberry’s fitness to serve as principal and steward of public-school finances.



II. CUSTODY-DISPUTE RELATED EVENTS AND INITIAL CONFLICT
Early 2021 – Communications With Child Custody Participants
According to the complaint, Lineberry allegedly communicated with the father of Michelle Pettitt’s child and/or the father’s counsel during an ongoing custody dispute.
The complaint alleges that school-related communications and/or Pettitt’s emails were shared with third parties connected to the custody matter.


III. PUBLIC CRITICISM OF LINEBERRY AND AZDOE COMPLAINT
Summer 2021 – Pettitt Learns of Prior Judgment Against Lineberry
Michelle Pettitt allegedly became aware of Lineberry’s prior civil fraud-related judgment and bankruptcy findings.
She began publicly questioning his suitability to serve as a public-school principal responsible for oversight of school finances and grant administration.

July 13, 2021 – Facebook Post Criticizing Lineberry
Pettitt publicly posted information regarding Lineberry’s prior civil judgment and financial misconduct history.
The complaint charactersizes this conduct as constitutionally protected speech involving a public official.

​

Strategic Significance

The Facebook post constitutes political and public-interest speech directed at the conduct of a public-school administrator. The post is significant because it represents protected expression occurring before the alleged retaliatory conduct described throughout this timeline. It establishes a clear point from which causation may be measured and provides context for later actions taken against Pettitt by school officials and government actors. The close temporal relationship between criticism and subsequent restrictions may support an inference of retaliatory motive.

July–August 2021 – Requests for Public Records / Communications
Pettitt requested copies of communications between Lineberry, the child’s father, and counsel associated with the custody dispute.
According to the complaint:
Lineberry refused to provide the communications;
He became increasingly hostile and defensive;
He allegedly demanded an apology after follow-up requests;
He allegedly wrote “Enough.” in response to further requests.

 

Strategic Significance

Pettitt utilized formal governmental accountability processes, including public-records requests and administrative complaints, to obtain information regarding district operations and official conduct. These activities constitute protected petitioning of government and are central to understanding the escalation that followed. The records requests created contemporaneous documentary evidence and may reveal inconsistencies between public statements, internal communications, and later litigation positions. The responses of district officials during this period may provide evidence of hostility toward scrutiny and transparency.

August 2021 – Arizona Department of Education notified Lineberry that they have opened an investigation
Pettitt filed a complaint with the Arizona Department of Education concerning Lineberry in late January.
The complaint alleges:
Lineberry learned of the complaint after being contacted by an investigator in mid August;
He became “infuriated” by the filing;
Retaliatory conduct escalated shortly thereafter.

​

Strategic Significance

The opening of an investigation by the Arizona Department of Education demonstrates that Pettitt's concerns were sufficiently substantial to warrant review by a state regulatory agency. This fact undermines any narrative that her complaints were frivolous or baseless. It also provides an independent governmental acknowledgment that the allegations merited examination and places additional pressure on district officials during the same period that tensions escalated.

​

August 17, 2021 — Pettitt emailed parents of students within Miami Unified School District regarding the January 2010 civil judgment against Glen Lineberry 

​

Strategic Significance

This communication involved information already contained within public court records concerning a public official. The event is significant because it illustrates Pettitt's efforts to inform other parents regarding matters she believed relevant to school leadership and governance. The communication also appears near the beginning of the sequence of actions that ultimately resulted in restrictions on her access to district property and participation in school affairs, making it relevant to issues of motive and causation.

IV. AUGUST 2021 DISTRICT BAN / PARENT CONTACT MANAGEMENT RESTRICTIONS
August 25, 2021 – District Issues Restrictive Access Letter / “Ban”, a mere 8 days after Pettitt exposes Lineberry
Miami Unified School District, through Lineberry and Dorathy, allegedly imposed sweeping restrictions on Pettitt’s access to school property.
According to the pleadings, the restrictions:
Barred Pettitt from district property except under specified conditions;
Required advance permission requests;
Required communications through designated personnel;
Restricted attendance at school activities involving her children;
Applied broadly to public events and district campuses.

The complaint characterizes the restrictions as:
Unconstitutional;
Retaliatory;
Overbroad;
Lacking procedural due process;
Designed to interfere with Pettitt’s parental rights and participation in her children’s education.

 

Strategic Significance

The PCM represents the first formal restriction imposed upon Pettitt's communications with district personnel. The timing is important because it followed protected speech, public criticism, and requests for accountability. The restrictions imposed by the PCM may be relevant to claims involving selective enforcement, viewpoint discrimination, and retaliation, particularly if comparable restrictions were not imposed upon similarly situated parents. The PCM also serves as the foundation upon which later allegations and enforcement actions were built.

​

V. COMPLIANCE ATTEMPTS AND ESCALATING CONFLICT
Late 2021 – Weekly Permission Emails Begin
According to the federal complaint, Pettitt attempted to comply with the district restrictions.
She allegedly sent recurring emails requesting permission to attend school-related events involving her sons.
Examples allegedly included:
“I am requesting to attend any event that [my sons] may be participating in this week on MUSD property.”
“I am requesting to attend the game Mon.”
“I am requesting to attend the game Wed.”

The complaint alleges:
Many events changed during the COVID era;
The district’s requirements were impractical and burdensome;
The district sometimes falsely claimed events were not occurring;
Pettitt often clarified when events were canceled or off-campus.

Strategic significance

Plaintiff later argues these emails demonstrate good-faith compliance, not harassment.

​

2021–2022 – Continuing Restrictions and Alleged Retaliation
The complaint alleges that compliance itself further angered Lineberry and Dorathy.
Plaintiff contends the district:
Continued enforcing the restrictions;
Increased scrutiny of Pettitt;
Treated ordinary attendance requests as problematic;
Used the resulting email volume to manufacture a harassment narrative.

 

Strategic significance

The progressive expansion of restrictions imposed upon Pettitt may demonstrate an escalating pattern of governmental action following protected activity. These measures are relevant because they show how an administrative disagreement evolved into increasingly severe limitations on access, communication, and participation in public-school affairs. The chronology may support an inference that district responses became progressively punitive rather than corrective.

VI. INJUNCTION AGAINST HARASSMENT / WORKPLACE HARASSMENT
June 2022 – Injunction Proceedings Initiated
Lineberry sought and obtained an injunction against harassment and/or workplace harassment against Pettitt.
According to the complaint:
The injunction was obtained through false, incomplete, or misleading testimony;
Material exculpatory context was omitted;
The injunction effectively forced Pettitt to comply with the already-existing district restrictions.

The complaint alleges that the injunction itself was invalid because:
It was based on protected speech;
It incorporated unconstitutional restrictions;
It allegedly lacked proper district authorization;
It was allegedly pursued in retaliation for protected activity.

Strategic Significance

The injunction later becomes the predicate for criminal charges. The injunction proceedings transformed an administrative dispute into a judicially enforceable restriction carrying criminal consequences. This event is strategically important because later criminal allegations depended upon the existence and interpretation of the injunction. Questions concerning the injunction's scope, clarity, and enforceability therefore affect every subsequent allegation arising from alleged violations. Any defects in the injunction process have significance far beyond the civil proceeding itself because they directly influenced later criminal enforcement.

June 30, 2022 – Service of Injunction
Pettitt was served with the injunction.
Trial summaries later indicate:
Pettitt testified she deleted the Boomerang email automation program after law enforcement warned her about continued scheduled messages;
Time-zone settings allegedly contributed to after-hours email transmissions.

 

Strategic Significance

The service date establishes the earliest point at which Pettitt could be held responsible for compliance with the injunction's provisions. It is therefore a critical factual benchmark in evaluating later allegations. The service date also provides context for disputed communications and supports analysis regarding notice, intent, and the practical ability to comply with the order's terms.

VII. JULY 2022 EMAILS AND MISDEMEANOR HARASSMENT CASE
July 3, 2022 – Email #1
Email allegedly sent: “I am requesting to attend any event that [my sons] may be participating in this week on MUSD property. Thank you. Dr. Pettitt.”

July 4, 2022 – Email #2
Email allegedly sent: “I am requesting to attend the game on Wed.”

July 5, 2022 – Email #3
Email allegedly sent: “I am requesting to attend the game on Mon.”

Strategic Significance

These three emails ultimately became the core basis for criminal harassment allegations.
The federal complaint repeatedly argues:
The emails were brief and non-threatening;
They mirrored the district’s own required communication procedure;
No reasonable person would perceive them as harassment;
Defendants allegedly believed the emails were automated.

​

July 2022 – Automated Boomerang Emails

Strategic Significance

These emails became the foundation for criminal allegations that ultimately resulted in prosecution. The circumstances surrounding the emails—including their automated nature, timing during summer break, and efforts to disable the automation once discovered—are central to evaluating intent. The event is significant because it highlights the distinction between intentional harassment and inadvertent automated communication, a distinction that became a central issue throughout subsequent criminal proceedings.

July 2022 – Criminal Misdemeanor Harassment Charges Filed
The Gila County Attorney’s Office initiated misdemeanor harassment proceedings.
According to the complaint:
The prosecution was based almost entirely on the July 3–5 emails;
The charges ignored the broader context of the district’s mandatory communication requirements.

 

Strategic Significance

The filing of criminal charges dramatically increased the stakes of the dispute and introduced the possibility of criminal penalties, reputational injury, and professional consequences. The decision to prosecute is particularly significant because it converted what began as a conflict involving criticism of public officials into a criminal matter. The basis, timing, and proportionality of the prosecution are therefore central issues throughout the case.

July–October 2022 – Continuances and Delays
The prosecution repeatedly continued hearings and pretrial proceedings.



VIII. OCTOBER 2022 DISMISSAL OF MISDEMEANOR CASE
October 10, 2022 – Misdemeanor Case Dismissed
The Gila County Attorney’s Office moved to dismiss the misdemeanor case “in the interest of justice.”
The court dismissed the case without prejudice.

Strategic Significance

The dismissal later becomes important in arguments regarding retaliatory escalation.

October 18, 2022 – Alleged Statements by Bradley Beauchamp
According to the complaint, Bradley Beauchamp personally contacted Pettitt’s counsel and stated:
He “chose” to dismiss the misdemeanor case;
The dismissal was in the best interests of both parties;
He would “refile” the matter as a felony if Pettitt “harassed the school in the future.”

The complaint further alleges:
Beauchamp admitted he had consulted with Lineberry;
Lineberry allegedly agreed to dismissal only if Pettitt complied with the district restrictions.


IX. VOTING, POLITICAL SPEECH, AND ESCALATION TO FELONY PROSECUTION
November 2022 – Election Activity on School Property
The complaint alleges Pettitt lawfully entered district property to:
Vote;
Engage in political speech;
Campaign or electioneer.

According to the pleadings:
This enraged Lineberry;
The district viewed the conduct as defiance of the restrictions;
Criminal escalation followed shortly thereafter.

The complaint specifically alleges that Bradley Beauchamp, Gila County Attorney and paid employee of Miami Unified School District, later admitted that prosecution decisions followed complaints by Lineberry after seeing Pettitt on district property engaging in protected political activity.

Election Period and Refiling of Charges

 

Strategic Significance

The alleged decision not to pursue charges followed by a later decision to refile after election-related events may be relevant to motive, causation, and prosecutorial discretion. The timing raises questions concerning the factors influencing prosecutorial decisions and whether outside communications or political considerations played any role in the renewed prosecution.

X. FELONY HARASSMENT / AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT PROSECUTION
Late 2022 / 2023 – Felony Charges Initiated
The matter was subsequently pursued as felony aggravated harassment charges arising from the July 2022 email allegations.

​

The complaint alleges that the felony prosecution was initiated despite evidence that the emails were generated through an automated scheduling system and despite the absence of any threatening, obscene, or violent content within the communications themselves.

​

Grand Jury Proceedings

According to the complaint:

• Prosecutors presented the matter to a grand jury seeking an indictment for felony aggravated harassment.

• The indictment was based upon allegations that Pettitt knowingly violated court-ordered communication restrictions.

• The prosecution relied upon the existence of the injunction and the automated emails as the basis for the felony charges.

• The grand jury proceedings occurred without presentation of competing evidence or adversarial testing of the allegations, consistent with ordinary grand jury practice.

The Complaint Also Alleges:

• The prosecution omitted or minimized information relevant to Pettitt's lack of intent, including the automated nature of the emails.

• The communications at issue were sent during summer break when school was not in session and were not directed to students.

• Pettitt took steps to disable the automated email system after learning the messages continued to be sent.

• Government officials treated inadvertent automated communications as criminal conduct despite evidence suggesting the emails were not manually generated.

• The prosecution was part of a broader pattern of escalating governmental actions that followed Pettitt's criticism of school officials, public-records requests, administrative complaints, and participation in matters of public concern.

• The felony charges exposed Pettitt to substantial criminal penalties, reputational harm, emotional distress, legal expenses, and potential professional consequences.

• The charges ultimately proceeded to trial, where subsequent proceedings resulted first in a mistrial after key exhibits were segregated from the jury and later in an acquittal on all counts.

 

Strategic Significance

The first trial subjected the prosecution's allegations to public scrutiny and adversarial testing, creating a detailed record of the evidence, witness testimony, and judicial rulings. The proceedings were publicly streamed on YouTube, allowing members of the community to observe the case in real time. Following the guilty verdict, the outcome received prominent local media coverage and was featured on the front page of the newspaper, amplifying the allegations and contributing to reputational harm. However, after the verdict was set aside due to the segregation of key exhibits from the jury and a mistrial was declared, those developments received little or no comparable publicity


XI. FIRST CRIMINAL TRIAL
July 2024 – First Criminal Trial Begins
The State proceeded to trial on felony aggravated harassment allegations.
According to preserved trial summaries:
The State argued the volume and timing of emails constituted harassment;
The defense argued the emails were automated, non-threatening, and required under district policy;
The defense emphasized lack of knowing intent;
UTC/Boomerang scheduling issues were introduced;
The district’s own restrictions requiring email communication were emphasized.

Key Trial Issues
The following themes repeatedly emerged:

A. Knowledge / Intent
Defense argued:
Emails were automatically scheduled;
Pettitt lacked conscious intent to harass;
Deletion of Boomerang after law enforcement contact showed good faith.

B. Reasonableness
Defense argued:
No reasonable person would feel threatened or alarmed by the brief attendance-request emails.

C. Contradictory Testimony
The defense challenged testimony that:
Emails violated district rules;
Emails could not be sent after hours;
Pettitt had sent “hundreds” of harassing emails.

D. Parent Contact Management Policy
The defense emphasized:
Pettitt was required to communicate through email;
The district itself created the communication structure later characterized as harassment.

July 2024 – Rule 20 Motion
Defense counsel moved for acquittal under Rule 20.
Arguments included:
No proof of knowing harassment;
Emails lacked threatening content;
No reasonable-person harassment standard met;
Jurisdictional/statutory concerns;
Distinction between injunction-against-harassment and injunction-against-workplace-harassment.
The court denied the motion.

 

Strategic Significance

The first trial exposed the prosecution's evidence to adversarial testing and created a public record regarding the allegations. Witness testimony, evidentiary rulings, and trial conduct provide important context for assessing the strength of the allegations and the reliability of the evidence relied upon by prosecutors and district officials.

 

July 2024 - Jury Deliberations and Segregated Exhibits

Strategic Significance

The discovery that admitted exhibits were segregated from the jury is among the most consequential procedural events in the case. The excluded exhibits formed the basis of the charged conduct and prevented jurors from reviewing evidence central to the allegations during deliberations. The event raises serious concerns regarding the integrity of the verdict and ultimately became the basis for setting aside the trial result.

July 2024 – Mistrial Declared
A mistrial was declared after the jury allegedly was not provided the actual July 3–5 emails during deliberations.

Strategic Significance

The mistrial eliminated the legal effect of the prior conviction and acknowledged that a significant procedural defect occurred during the trial process. The mistrial substantially weakens any claim that the initial guilty verdict reflected a reliable determination of guilt and demonstrates that the proceeding was affected by a serious irregularity requiring judicial intervention.The mistrial became a central component of Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution narrative.

 

July 2024 - Publicity Following Guilty Verdict

Strategic Significance

Public reporting of the guilty verdict contributed to reputational harm and professional damage. The fact that subsequent developments—including the mistrial and ultimate acquittal—received substantially less public attention may be relevant to damages arising from reputational injury, emotional distress, and professional consequences.

​

​

XII. MEDICAL BOARD INVESTIGATION AND LICENSURE HEARING

March 13, 2025 - Arizona Medical Board Hearing

While the criminal prosecution remained unresolved, Pettitt was required to defend her professional license in a separate proceeding before the Arizona Medical Board. The Board's review arose from a complaint submitted during the pendency of the criminal case, forcing Pettitt to simultaneously defend herself in both criminal and professional disciplinary forums.

​

According to information obtained during the matter, the telephone number associated with the complaint to the Medical Board was allegedly traced to the office of Steven Shaw's wife. Steven Shaw served as the lead investigator for the Gila County Attorney's Office under Gila County Attorney Bradley Beauchamp and was involved in matters relating to the investigation and prosecution of Pettitt. The circumstances surrounding the origin of the complaint raised additional questions regarding the source, motivation, and timing of the allegations presented to the Medical Board.

​

The Board proceeding required Pettitt to expend substantial additional time, resources, and legal effort to protect her professional license and ability to practice medicine. The disciplinary investigation created uncertainty regarding her professional future and exposed her to potential reputational damage independent of the pending criminal prosecution.

​

Following review of the evidence and proceedings before the Board, the matter was ultimately resolved without disciplinary action against Pettitt's medical license.

​

Strategic Significance

The Medical Board proceeding illustrates how the consequences of the criminal allegations extended far beyond the courtroom. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the criminal case, Pettitt was forced to defend her professional reputation, livelihood, and medical license before a separate governmental body. The proceeding substantially increased the financial, emotional, and professional burdens associated with the underlying allegations.

​

The timing of the complaint, coupled with allegations regarding its origin, may be relevant to issues of motive, coordination, retaliation, and damages. If proven, evidence connecting the complaint to individuals associated with the criminal investigation could support an inference that efforts to discredit Pettitt extended beyond criminal prosecution and into her professional career.

​

The Medical Board matter is also significant because it demonstrates the tangible professional consequences flowing from the allegations despite the eventual acquittal on all criminal charges. While the criminal case ultimately ended in Pettitt's favor, the reputational and professional harm associated with defending a medical license before a regulatory board had already occurred, contributing to the damages alleged throughout this action.

XIII. SECOND CRIMINAL TRIAL
Late 2024 – State Elects Retrial
According to the complaint:
Lineberry and Dorathy allegedly consulted with Beauchamp regarding retrying the case;
They allegedly wanted prosecution to continue despite the mistrial;
The State elected to proceed with a second felony trial after the mistrial.

Strategic Significance

Plaintiff charactersizes the decision to retry the case as further evidence of retaliatory motive and malicious prosecution, particularly because the prosecution continued after the evidentiary problems that caused the mistrial.

Publicity and Public Streaming of Criminal Proceedings
The felony proceedings were publicly streamed on YouTube and became highly visible within the local community.
According to Pettitt’s allegations and related materials:
The criminal proceedings were publicly accessible and livestreamed;
Public reporting surrounding the prosecution significantly damaged Pettitt’s reputation and professional standing;
Coverage of the criminal allegations and guilty findings received substantial local attention.

The record further reflects allegations that:
Guilty findings and adverse proceedings were prominently publicized;
The guilty verdict became front-page news in the local newspaper;
By contrast, the mistrial and later acquittal did not receive comparable coverage or prominence.

Strategic significance

These allegations are relevant to damages, reputational injury, emotional distress, and the continuing impact of the prosecution on Pettitt’s medical practice and standing within the community.

January 2025 – Second Trial Proceedings
The second criminal trial proceeded in early 2025.
The complaint alleges:
False and misleading testimony again occurred;
Witnesses again characterized the emails as harassing;
Witnesses again claimed Pettitt had sent “hundreds” of emails;
The prosecution again relied heavily on the July 3–5, 2022 emails.

Defense themes again included:
Lack of intent;
Automated scheduling;
Protected activity;
Unreasonable and unconstitutional district restrictions;
Lack of genuine harassment;
The contradiction between requiring email communication and criminalizing those same communications.

 

Evidentiary Problems Involving the July 3–5 Emails
One of the central factual issues in the felony proceedings involved the three July 3–5, 2022 emails that formed the entire basis of the harassment allegations.
According to the preserved trial history and allegations:
The three emails were segregated from the jury during deliberations in the first felony trial;
The jury did not receive the actual emails that constituted the alleged acts of harassment;
This evidentiary problem became the basis for the mistrial declaration.

Strategic significance

Plaintiff uses this sequence to argue:
The prosecution was fundamentally defective;
The actual emails undermined the State’s harassment theory;
The State’s characterization of the emails was stronger than the substance of the emails themselves.


XIV. ACQUITTAL
January 31, 2025 – Not Guilty Verdicts
The jury acquitted Pettitt on all counts.
According to the complaint:
Deliberations lasted less than 40 minutes.

Strategic significance

The acquittal is critical to:
Malicious prosecution claims;
Constitutional retaliation claims;
Damages theories;
Claims of lack of probable cause.

 

The acquittal represents the final adjudication of the criminal allegations and establishes that the State failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. After hearing all of the evidence presented during the second trial, the jury deliberated for less than 40 minutes before returning verdicts of not guilty on all counts. The acquittal is significant not only because it ended the prosecution, but because it directly contradicts the public narrative created by the earlier guilty verdict—a verdict that was later set aside after the court determined that key admitted exhibits had been improperly segregated from the jury during deliberations. It serves as the culmination of the timeline and provides important context for evaluating the reliability of the allegations, the prosecution's theory of the case, and the conduct of governmental actors throughout the dispute. Despite the decisive acquittal, the outcome received little public attention compared to the extensive publicity surrounding the original conviction, leaving many members of the community unaware that Pettitt was ultimately exonerated by a jury.


XV. DAMAGES AND AFTERMATH
July 2022– Child Transfers School DistrictsThe complaint alleges Pettitt’s youngest son ultimately changed school districts as a result of the ongoing conflict

 

2025 – Medical License Defense Proceedings
According to the complaint, Pettitt was required to defend her medical license because of the criminal prosecution.

2025 – Financial and Emotional Damages
The complaint alleges damages including:
More than $XXX,XXX in attorneys’ fees and costs;
Emotional distress;
Reputational harm;
Physical and psychological stress;
Family disruption.

December 2, 2025 – Continued Permission Request Requirement
The complaint alleges Pettitt remained subject to the district restrictions even after acquittal.
An example email allegedly requested permission to attend a student vigil at Miami High School.
The district allegedly approved attendance while simultaneously reaffirming the continuing restrictions.

Strategic significance: Plaintiff uses this continuing conduct to support claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.


XVI. ADMINISTRATIVE AND ETHICS COMPLAINTS
February 15, 2025 – Arizona Attorney General Open Meeting Law Complaint
Pettitt submitted an Open Meeting Law complaint against Miami Unified School District and related individuals.

May 2025 – Complaints Filed Against Lineberry and Beauchamp
Pettitt pursued:
Arizona DOE misconduct complaints;
Florida DOE complaints;
State Bar complaints;
Public-records requests;
Requests for investigation into alleged prosecutorial misconduct and conflicts of interest.

The complaints alleged:
Retaliation;
Abuse of process;
Ethical violations;
Failure to disclose exculpatory evidence;
Conflict of interest;
Conspiracy and malicious prosecution.


XVII. FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION
January 28, 2026 – Federal Civil Rights Complaint Filed
Pettitt filed federal litigation in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
The complaint asserted claims including:
42 U.S.C. § 1983 retaliation;
Malicious prosecution;
Conspiracy;
Abuse of process;
Declaratory and injunctive relief;
Emotional distress;
State-law tort claims.

Core allegations included:
Retaliation for protected speech;
Retaliation for filing administrative complaints;
Retaliation for voting and political speech;
Unconstitutional restrictions on school access;
False testimony;
Concealment of exculpatory evidence;
Coordinated efforts between district officials and prosecutors.


XVIII. DEFENSE MOTIONS TO DISMISS
April 9, 2026 – Motion to Dismiss Filed by District Defendants
Lineberry, Dorathy, and Miami Unified School District moved to dismiss the complaint.

Major defense arguments included:
Statute of limitations;
Failure to state a claim;
Prosecutorial independence;
Grand jury presumption of probable cause;
Lack of actionable abuse of process;
Lack of constitutional right to district property.

The defense argued:
The grand jury indictment established probable cause;
Plaintiff failed to adequately plead improper pressure on prosecutors;
Earlier proceedings were time-barred.

Strategic Significance 

The MTD previewed the central battlegrounds likely to define the federal case:
Prosecutorial independence;
Causation;
Probable cause;
Retaliatory motive;
Qualified immunity;
Municipal liability.


XVIIV. OVERARCHING THEMES ACROSS THE RECORD
A. Retaliation Theory
The pleadings consistently frame the sequence as escalating retaliation for:
Public criticism of Lineberry;
Filing an AZDOE complaint;
Public-records requests;
Voting and political expression;
Advocacy regarding children and district governance.

B. Manufactured Harassment Narrative
Plaintiff’s theory repeatedly asserts:
The district required email communication;
The same communications were later reframed as harassment;
Defendants exaggerated email volume and tone;
Non-threatening attendance requests became the basis for criminal prosecution.

C. Conspiracy / Coordination Allegations
The pleadings repeatedly allege coordination among:
Lineberry;
Dorathy;
Beauchamp;
Prosecutors;
Investigators.

Central allegations include:
Pressure for prosecution;
Agreement to escalate charges;
Concealment of exculpatory evidence;
False or misleading testimony.

D. Continuing Injury
Plaintiff alleges the restrictions and reputational harms continue despite acquittal.

Defendants pressured for felony prosecution;

False and misleading information was supplied to investigators and prosecutors;

Exculpatory evidence was concealed;

The grand jury was not shown the  emails forming the basis of the charges.

Deputy Wingett testified before the grand jury;

Testimony allegedly mischaracterized the district restrictions;

The grand jury allegedly was not shown the three underlying emails;

The prosecution allegedly omitted exculpatory context.

Wingett falsely testified Pettitt could not email outside school-session periods;

Wingett falsely testified Pettitt had sent “hundreds” of emails.

​