Jackson v. City of Dallas ( 2022 )

Case: 21-10888 Document: 00516357822 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 15, 2022
No. 21-10888 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Marsha Jackson,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
City of Dallas,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:20-CV-967
Before Clement, Graves, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
After an illegal shingle recycling facility operated on an industrially
zoned lot next to her home, Marsha Jackson brought an equal protection
claim against the City of Dallas for its alleged racially discriminatory zoning
scheme. The district court dismissed Jackson’s claim pursuant to Monell v.
Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) because Jackson failed to
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-10888 Document: 00516357822 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2022
No. 21-10888
plausibly allege the City’s zoning policy was the moving force behind the
illegal shingle operation. Specifically, because Jackson alleged the shingle
operation violated the City’s zoning policy and the deed restrictions the City
placed on the lot, the district court concluded there was not a plausible causal
connection between the policy and the alleged constitutional violation. See
Mason v. Lafayette City-Par. Consol. Gov’t, 806 F.3d 268, 280 (5th Cir. 2015)
(“The ‘moving force’ inquiry imposes a causation standard higher than ‘but
for’ causation.” (citation omitted)). Having reviewed Jackson’s allegations
de novo, we conclude there is no reversible error in the district court’s
analysis. And much of Jackson’s argument in this court focuses on a theory
of discrimination—that the City’s initial decision to zone the land for
industrial use was racially motivated—that was not advanced in the district
court and is thus forfeited. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
2