Court Opinion

ID: 9555441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-12 00:00:23.452266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:35.459213
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-51038        Document: 00516855634             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/11/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-51038
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                August 11, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Austin James,                                                                      Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Deputy Glenn Larcom, individual capacity; Deputy J. Jiles,
   Badge Number 110; individual and official capacity,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 1:22-CV-149
                     ______________________________

   Before Clement, Graves, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Austin James, a customer of the Travis County Records Division,
   alleges that his civil rights were violated when he was denied entry to the
   Records Division’s office for refusing to wear a mask, in contravention of a

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51038     Document: 00516855634           Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                    No. 22-51038

   county order. Because James failed to plausibly allege a violation of the
   Fourteenth Amendment, we AFFIRM.
                                         I.
          On December 21, 2021, Travis County Constable’s Office Deputies
   G. Larcom and J. Jiles denied James access to the Travis County Records
   Division because James was not wearing a face covering, in violation of the
   county’s mask order. The second provision of the order required all
   “employees” “entering into or present within” specified Travis County
   buildings to wear a face covering. The third provision applied the same face-
   covering requirement to “Customers.” And the fifth provision stated that
   “Customers who do not wish to wear a face covering when entering into or
   visiting a designated County Facility . . . will be required to leave the
   premises.” The order did not contain any provision regarding whether
   “employees” who did not wish to wear a face covering would also be required
   to leave the premises.
          James alleges that, during their confrontation, Jiles “pulled his [own]
   face covering entirely below his chin” and yet Jiles—unlike James—“was
   allowed reentry into the Records Office.” James therefore filed class-of-one
   equal-protection claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 for this
   alleged violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court
   dismissed James’ complaint for failure to plausibly allege a constitutional
   violation. James appeals.
                                        II.
          We review a district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo.
   Petersen v. Johnson, 57 F.4th 225, 231 (5th Cir. 2023) (citing In re Katrina
   Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007)). “To survive a
   motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
   accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”

                                         2
Case: 22-51038      Document: 00516855634           Page: 3    Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                     No. 22-51038

   Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
   550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
   pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
   that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly,
   550 U.S. at 556). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
   supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citing
   Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “We may affirm a district court’s Rule 12(b)(6)
   dismissal on any grounds raised below and supported by the record.”
   Petersen, 57 F.4th at 231 (quoting Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th
   Cir. 2007)).
                                         III.
          To establish an equal protection violation as a “class of one,” James
   was required to plausibly allege that (1) he was “intentionally treated
   differently from others similarly situated” and (2) “there was no rational
   basis for the difference in treatment.” Lindquist v. City of Pasadena, 669 F.3d
   225, 233 (5th Cir. 2012). The district court found that James failed at the first
   prong because he had not identified any “other customer who attempted to
   enter the Records Office without a face covering who was not asked to
   leave,” and Jiles (an employee) was “not an apt comparator” because the
   applicable provision in the county’s mask order “applie[d] only to
   ‘customers,’ not employees.” We agree.
          While there is no “rigid, mechanical” test for determining whether
   James and Jiles are “similarly situated,” our court has explained that “[i]n a
   case like this one, which involves the application of an ordinance or statute,
   the plaintiff’s and comparators’ relationships with the ordinance at issue will
   generally be a relevant characteristic for purposes of the similarly-situated
   analysis.” Lindquist, 669 F.3d at 233–34. Our opinion in Beeler v. Rounsavall
   is instructive. 328 F.3d 813 (5th Cir. 2003). There, we found that the statute

                                          3
Case: 22-51038          Document: 00516855634              Page: 4      Date Filed: 08/11/2023

                                           No. 22-51038

   at issue “clearly distinguishe[d] between applications for new permits and
   applications to renew existing permits” and therefore the plaintiff—who was
   applying for a new permit—and his proposed comparators—who were
   applying to renew an existing permit—“were not similarly situated.” Id. at
   817. As the district court recognized, the same logic applies here. The Travis
   County order clearly distinguished between “employees” and “customers.”
   And while it required both employees and customers to wear masks, only
   customers who declined to wear masks were “required to leave the premises.”
   Thus, Jiles—an employee—and James—a customer—were not similarly
   situated. Because James has not identified any customer-comparators, he has
   failed to plausibly allege a Fourteenth Amendment violation.
          A plausibly alleged constitutional violation is a required element of
   James’ § 1983 and § 1985 claims. E.g., Jackson v. Pierre, 810 F. App’x 276,
   280–81 (5th Cir. 2020). Since James did not establish a constitutional
   violation, the district court correctly dismissed James’ claims against Jiles
   and Larcom in their personal capacities on qualified-immunity grounds, see
   Benfield v. Magee, 945 F.3d 333, 339 (5th Cir. 2019), and his claims against
   Jiles in his official capacity on the merits, see City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475
   U.S. 796, 799 (1986). 1
          We AFFIRM.

          _____________________
          1
              We therefore need not address the district court’s other bases for dismissal.

                                                 4