Lehman v. Guinn
2:20-cv-00736
W.D. La.Feb 23, 2022Background
- Christopher Lehman, a Jennings, Louisiana resident, sued the City and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming multiple equal protection and First Amendment theories based on the City’s alleged failure to enforce zoning and code ordinances in his neighborhood.
- The district court previously dismissed most claims but allowed Lehman to amend a surviving "class-of-one" equal protection selective-enforcement claim and a First Amendment retaliation claim tied to a prior employment lawsuit against the City.
- In his amended complaint Lehman alleged the City ignored his complaints about numerous blighted neighboring properties and that enforcement was provided to others but not to him because he previously sued the City.
- Defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the amended "class-of-one" selective-enforcement claim, arguing Lehman still failed to identify similarly situated nonlitigant comparators and that failure-to-enforce against third parties cannot support an equal protection claim.
- The magistrate judge found Lehman’s many attachments sometimes contradicted his allegations, noted he largely failed to identify specific comparators who (1) lodged complaints, (2) were nonlitigants, and (3) received enforcement, and concluded the amended complaint did not state a viable class-of-one selective-enforcement claim.
- The court also held that even if comparators were adequately pled, the claimed injury—government’s failure to enforce ordinances against third parties—is not the sort of targeted unequal treatment actionable under the Equal Protection Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a "similarly situated" comparator is required to plead a class-of-one selective-enforcement claim | Lehman: not required; his allegations of disparate enforcement suffice | Defendants: comparator is a prerequisite; Lehman failed to identify proper comparators | Held: Comparator is required; Lehman failed to plead any suitable comparator |
| Whether a class-of-one equal protection claim can be based on government’s failure to enforce ordinances against third parties | Lehman: City's inaction against third parties that he reported demonstrates selective enforcement against him as a prior litigant | Defendants: Failure to enforce against others does not amount to actionable unequal treatment under equal protection | Held: Failure-to-enforce against third parties does not state a cognizable selective-enforcement equal protection claim; dismissal recommended |
Key Cases Cited
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (sets forth the two-part "class of one" standard)
- Mikeska v. City of Galveston, 451 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2006) (identifies categories of class-of-one claims including selective enforcement)
- Villarreal v. City of Laredo, Texas, 17 F.4th 532 (5th Cir. 2021) (recognizes comparator proof as prerequisite for selective-enforcement claims)
- Lindquist v. City of Pasadena, 669 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 2012) (explains case-specific "similarly situated" analysis and relevant factors)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards: courts need more than legal conclusions)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (1985) (distinguishes nonactionable generalized nonenforcement from actionable selective prosecution based on improper motive)
- Jones v. Alcoa, Inc., 339 F.3d 359 (5th Cir. 2003) (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive Rule 12(b)(6))