Wilhite v. Harvey, 20-20181

Vivian Wilhite owned and operated Royal T Child Development Center, a Texas-licensed child-care facility subject to statutory licensing requirements.
In 2015–2016 Child Care Licensing inspectors documented multiple deficiencies at Royal T, including staff not knowing children's ages, presence of a person with a criminal history without a required risk assessment, and failure to obtain a required fire inspection.
The Child Care Licensing Division moved to revoke Wilhite’s licenses; the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) held a hearing and upheld the revocation; judicial review of the administrative decision was available under Texas law.
Wilhite sued state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging procedural and substantive due process violations (abuse of process, malicious use of false evidence) stemming from allegedly improper inspections and claiming a licensing supervisor (Rice) had a competing business motive.
The district court dismissed Wilhite’s second amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim; Wilhite appealed.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding Wilhite’s allegations were conclusory, she received adequate process (administrative hearing and available judicial review), and she failed to plead conscience-shocking conduct to support a substantive due process claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural due process: whether revocation deprived Wilhite of property without adequate process	Wilhite: inspections and revocation deviated from procedures and denied constitutionally adequate process	Defendants: Wilhite received required administrative hearing (SOAH) and had judicial-review remedies under Texas law	Court: Held process was adequate; procedural due process claim fails because administrative and judicial review were available and used
Substantive due process: whether defendants’ conduct was conscience-shocking	Wilhite: Rice had competing business and acted to drive her out of business, showing improper motive and biased enforcement	Defendants: Alleged bias is conclusory; inspections were conducted by other officers and documented legitimate safety-related deficiencies	Court: Held allegations insufficient to show conscience-shocking conduct; pleaded facts admit several deficiencies and do not plausibly show improper motive or fabricated defects
Fourth Amendment claim abandonment and pleadings rule	Wilhite raised unreasonable search/seizure claim in complaint	Defendants: Wilhite abandoned Fourth Amendment on appeal; district court may not consider new facts in briefs	Court: Treated Fourth Amendment as abandoned on appeal and limited review to allegations in the operative complaint

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: plausibility and that conclusory allegations are insufficient)
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (post-deprivation process inquiry)
Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (adequacy of post-deprivation remedies when initial deprivation deviates from procedures)
Marco Outdoor Advert., Inc. v. Reg'l Transit Auth., 489 F.3d 669 (5th Cir.) (notice and opportunity to be heard requirement)
Cornerstone Christian Schs. v. Univ. Interscholastic League, 563 F.3d 127 (5th Cir.) (de novo review of motions to dismiss)
Cripps v. La. Dep't of Agric. & Forestry, 819 F.3d 221 (5th Cir.) (substantive due process requires conduct that shocks the contemporary conscience)
Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (review of executive enforcement decisions focuses on objective factors rather than subjective intent)
Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc. v. Lincoln Prop. Co., 920 F.3d 890 (5th Cir.) (on a motion to dismiss courts may not consider new factual allegations raised only in briefs)