Plaintiff Priscilla Tryon Cambric purchased a historic building in Corpus Christi known as the Ebony Recreation Spot in 2003. The City's Code Enforcement Division repeatedly cited the property for structural defects and recommended its demolition to the Building Standards Board. Despite Cambric's efforts to pursue historical preservation, the Board voted to recommend demolition in September 2023. The City later suspended the demolition order but required Cambric to install fencing and board up the first floor. When Cambric allegedly failed to meet these conditions, the City ordered demolition within 30 days. Cambric sued the City and two employees, alleging they selectively enforced building codes against her property in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. She claimed the City had a policy or custom of targeting her property while allowing other properties, including historic sites, to avoid similar enforcement. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and Cambric appealed.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo, accepting all well-pleaded facts as true. The court first addressed the threshold requirement of municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, which requires a plaintiff to show that an official policy or custom was the moving force behind the constitutional violation. The court identified three routes to establishing such a policy: a formal statement by a policymaker, a persistent widespread practice constituting a custom, or a single unconstitutional act by a final policymaker. The court found that Cambric failed to plead a formal policy or a single unconstitutional act by a final policymaker, effectively forfeiting those arguments on appeal. Consequently, the court focused on whether Cambric adequately pleaded a 'custom' or 'pattern' of selective enforcement. Cambric alleged a pattern of selective enforcement and cited the City's treatment of the Ritz Theatre project as a counterpoint to her own experience. However, the court held that a single instance of uneven enforcement is insufficient to establish a custom. The court noted that at the same Board meeting where Cambric's property was discussed, four other properties were also voted for demolition, and Cambric did not allege that those owners received different treatment. The court concluded that Cambric's allegations condensed to an isolated incident rather than a pattern of abuses. Because Cambric failed to plead sufficient facts to support a municipal policy or custom, the court affirmed the dismissal without reaching the substantive constitutional claim. In a concurring opinion, Judge Oldham clarified that the recent precedent in Hershey v. City of Bossier City, which allowed a Monell claim to proceed based on a single incident of failure to train, does not apply here. He emphasized that Hershey was limited to failure-to-train theories and should not be extended to cases alleging selective enforcement by policymakers.
The decision affirms the dismissal of Cambric's complaint, meaning the City is not liable for the alleged selective enforcement under the current pleadings. The ruling reinforces the high pleading standard required to establish municipal liability under Monell, particularly for 'class of one' equal protection claims. It clarifies that isolated instances of uneven enforcement are insufficient to prove a custom or policy. The decision also limits the scope of the Hershey precedent, confirming it applies only to failure-to-train scenarios and not to claims of selective enforcement by policymakers. The case remains closed unless Cambric can amend her complaint to allege a sufficiently numerous pattern of prior incidents or a specific formal policy.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download