Case Information
No. 6:24-cv-00426 Tracy Lynn Starr, Plaintiff, v.
City of Palestine, Texas, Defendant.
O R D E R
Plaintiff Tracy Lynn Starr filed this action against defendant, the City of Palestine, Texas, for alleged violations of the Four- teenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Docs. 1, 7. This case was referred to a magistrate judge. Doc. 3.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended com- plaint on February 11, 2025. Doc. 11. Plaintiff’s response, mailed on February 24, 2025, see Doc 14-2, was received after the magis- trate judge issued his initial report. Doc. 14. In turn, the magis- trate judge issued an amended report that recommended dismis- sal of plaintiff’s claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Doc. 15. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the report. Doc. 18.
The court reviews the objected-to portions of a report and rec- ommendation de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n , 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Before addressing the substance of plaintiff’s objections, the court must acknowledge that plaintiff’s objections are direct screenshots of a response generated by artificial-intelligence ser- vice ChatGPT. Doc. 18. The court reminds plaintiff, and all pro se litigants, that the Eastern District of Texas’s local rules provide explicit standards that pro se litigants must follow when using cer- tain generative AI technologies. E.D. Tex. Local Rule CV-11(g). Pro se litigants remain bound by the court’s rules and the stand- ards articulated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
Still, plaintiff’s objections fail in their substance. Plaintiff ar- gues that dismissal of her equal-protection claim is improper be- cause she adequately pleaded a viable class-of-one equal-protec- tion claim. Doc. 18 at 3. That is, plaintiff argues the merits of the constitutional violation. Id. But the report recommended dismis- sal of plaintiff’s equal-protection claim, not for failure to ade- quately plead a constitutional violation, but instead for failure to plead the necessary elements under Monell v. Department of Social Services. 436 U.S. 658, 690–91, 694–95 (1978).
First, plaintiff fails to allege any official policy, either “in the form of written policy statements, ordinances, or regulations” or “in the form of a widespread practice that is ‘so common and well-settled as to constitute a custom that fairly represents munic- ipal policy.’” Fisher v. City of Amarillo , No. 2:20-cv-00064, 2020 WL 7646975, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2020) (quoting Peterson v. City of Fort Worth , 588 F.3d 838, 847 (5th Cir. 2009)).
Second, plaintiff fails to allege a policymaker. Defendant—the City of Palestine—“cannot be liable” for a violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights by an unwritten custom unless “actual or constructive knowledge of such a custom is attributable to a city policymaker.” Fisher , 2020 WL 7646975, at *4 (citing Pena v. City of Rio Grande City , 879 F.3d 613, 623 (5th Cir. 2018)). The only policymaker plaintiff attempts to identify is “the police officer [who] refuses to register [her] at the address” she rented. [1] Doc. 7 at 1. This is not sufficient to establish that the police officer has any policymaking authority over the decision. Alusi v. City of Frisco , No. 4:22-cv-00397, 2023 WL 5509307, at *11 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2023) (“mistakenly conflat[ing] policymaking authority with decision-making authority” is “something Fifth Circuit precedent has consistently counseled against” (cleaned up)).
Thus, the court finds no error in the magistrate judge’s rec- ommendation because plaintiff indeed failed to plead (1) an offi- cial policy of defendant to apply the city ordinance in an uncon- stitutional manner (or an unwritten custom of doing so), (2) a pol- icymaker with actual or constructive knowledge of such a policy, and (3) that any such policy was the moving force behind the al- leged violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Doe v. Beau- mont Indep. Sch. Dist. , 615 F. Supp. 3d 471, 495 (E.D. Tex. 2022). Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.
Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report de novo, and being satisfied that it contains no error, the court accepts its find- ings and recommendation. The court grants defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) and dismisses this action with prejudice. Any pending motions are denied as moot.
So ordered by the court on July 18, 2025. J. C AM PB EL L B A RK ER United States District Judge
[1] Ms. Smith, the parks and recreation director, has no involvement with the alleged violation of plaintiff ’s constitutional rights. Plaintiff refers to Ms. Smith’s statement only to offer evidence showing children do not commonly gather in the parks she wishes to live by. See Doc. 7 at 2–3.