Law Library Access Denial: The Library of the Guilty
2 min read
FOIA Request DEA Records Williamson County Jail Controlled Substances Investigation
FOIA request DEA records — This document is a formal Freedom of Information Act request seeking federal records related to controlled substance registration, prescribing authority, and regulatory oversight within Williamson County Jail. This request is based on documented concerns involving medical administration, delegation authority, and compliance with federal controlled substance laws.
This publication constitutes a preserved public record. The document below is presented in its original form and reflects a formal request submitted under federal law. No modifications have been made to the substance of the request.
FOIA Request Document — DEA Records
LeRoy Nellis
4845 Twin Valley Dr.
Austin, TX 78731
Email: [email protected]
Date:
Drug Enforcement Administration
FOIA/Records Management Section
8701 Morrissette Drive
Springfield, VA 22152
RE: FOIA Request – DEA Registration, Delegation, and Controlled Substance Activity
Facility: Williamson County Jail, 306 W 4th St, Georgetown, TX 78626
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552), I am requesting copies of all records held by the Drug Enforcement Administration relating to controlled substance registrations, prescribing activity, delegation authority, and any investigative or regulatory action involving the following individuals or entities:
Physicians / Medical Providers
1. Dr. John Mark Janes, MD – Texas License H8939
2. Dr. Henry L. Higgins, MD – Texas License L6232
3. Any additional physicians whose DEA number is registered at, delegated to, or used by Williamson County Jail or its medical contractor(s).
4. Any APRNs, EMTs, or medical staff who were granted authority, explicitly or implicitly, to issue or administer controlled substances within the jail.
Records Requested
For each individual/entity listed, please provide:
1. DEA registration applications (Form-224 and renewals)
2. DEA registration status, restrictions, suspensions, or actions
3. ARCOS reports reflecting controlled substance activity
4. DEA Form-222 or digital controlled substance orders
5. Any suspicious activity reports or compliance flags
6. All DEA investigations, notes, audits, or inquiries involving:
Williamson County Jail
Williamson County Sheriff’s Office
Jail medical staff or contractors
7. All correspondence between DEA and Williamson County personnel
8. Any delegation or supervisory authority filed with DEA regarding mid-level practitioners (APRN, PA)
9. Any records showing controlled substances prescribed, dispensed, administered, or ordered under these DEA numbers at the jail.
Timeframe Requested
January 1, 2023 – Present
Fee Category
I request a fee waiver as this request concerns matters of significant public interest related to medical care in a government-operated detention facility. I am an individual requester and agree to pay up to $25.00 in fees unless otherwise notified.
Please send electronic records to: [email protected]
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
/s/ LeRoy Nellis
(Handwritten signature if mailed)
Transparency and Public Record Notice
This document is published as part of a FOIA request DEA records archive. It is preserved to ensure transparency, accountability, and continuity of public records related to detention facility medical operations.
For reference:
The current version supersedes all prior versions and reflects the most accurate preserved record available.
Additional documentation, responses, and supporting records will be published as they are received and verified.
© LeRoy Nellis — Public Records Archive
Law library access denial is one of the most critical and least visible barriers inside pretrial detention. This chapter documents how restricted access to legal materials limits defense preparation, isolates detainees, and undermines constitutional protections in practice.
For timeline context, see the Williamson County timeline. For system-level structure, see intergovernmental personnel frameworks.
External reference: Bounds v. Smith (1977) – Full Decision
The Library of the Guilty
The law library wasn’t a room.
It didn’t have shelves.
It didn’t have books.
It didn’t have the quiet rhythm of pages turning under fluorescent lights.
It was a tablet.
A slab of glass and plastic—issued, timed, monitored, and controlled.
A digital portal locked behind privilege, classification, and decisions made somewhere beyond your reach.
And like everything else in Williamson County Jail, access wasn’t really about rights.
It was about placement.
If you were in the pods, you could get to it.
If you were classified correctly, you could request time.
If you were in the part of the jail that still pretended to connect to due process, maybe you got access.
But if you were on the Southside—segregated, isolated, removed—you got nothing.
No legal texts.
No case law.
No procedural guides.
No federal statutes.
No meaningful way to prepare your defense.
Just silence.
Not peaceful silence.
Administrative silence.
The kind that tells you the answer is already no before the question finishes forming.
I was a pretrial detainee.
Legally innocent.
Constitutionally protected.
At least that’s what the system says on paper.
Inside the jail, those words didn’t carry weight.
The system operated on a different assumption.
Guilt first. Process second.
And the law library reflected that structure.
It wasn’t built for defense.
It was built for aftermath.
The tablets were rationed.
Timed.
Monitored.
You didn’t use them freely.
You borrowed access in controlled fragments.
Minutes were counted.
Sessions were limited.
Every interaction passed through permission.
And even when access was granted, the content revealed the system’s priorities.
Habeas petitions.
Sentence modifications.
Appeals.
Everything focused on what happens after conviction.
Nothing for someone trying to stop the process before it hardened into judgment.
I asked for access.
I asked repeatedly.
I asked for federal code.
I asked for procedure.
I asked for tools.
What I got wasn’t a direct denial.
It was delay.
Deflection.
“We’ll see.”
“Put in another request.”
“We’ll check on it.”
They never did.
On the Southside, denial wasn’t just about resources.
It was about identity.
You weren’t treated as someone preparing a defense.
You were processed as someone already defined.
Voice removed.
Tools withheld.
Agency reduced.
And when you asked why, they gave you administrative language.
Classification.
Security.
Staffing.
Neutral words.
But the pattern wasn’t neutral.
It was intentional.
Denial at that level isn’t failure.
It’s design.
The law library wasn’t built for justice.
It was built for containment.
It created the appearance of access while withholding its substance.
It normalized guilt before conviction.
It trained compliance without force.
But I didn’t let it end there.
I documented everything.
Every missing page became testimony.
Every denied request became evidence.
Every absence became structure.
This isn’t just about access.
This is about architecture.
About systems that shape outcomes before they are written.
About silence used as a tool.
And the refusal to disappear inside it.
⚖️ Legal Foundation of Law Library Access Denial
- Bounds v. Smith (1977) — Requires meaningful access to courts via law libraries or legal assistance.
- 28 CFR § 543.10–543.11 — Mandates access to legal materials and document preparation.
- TDCJ Policy — Guarantees adequate access through direct or indirect means.
📚 What Adequate Access Requires
- Up-to-date statutes
- Case law
- Procedural rules
- Legal guides
- Basic supplies
Anything less is not access.
It is simulation.