A-Pro Towing v. Cantu ( 2021 )

Case: 20-40599 Document: 00515956378 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 28, 2021
No. 20-40599 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
A-Pro Towing and Recovery, L.L.C.,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Martin Cantu, Sr.,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:19-CV-16
Before King, Dennis, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Defendant Martin Cantu, Sr., is a city commissioner in Port Isabel,
Texas who owns (along with other family members) several towing
companies. This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit arises out of certain actions Cantu is
alleged to have taken with respect to the Port Isabel Police Department’s
management of its “wrecker rotation list”—the list that dictates which
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-40599 Document: 00515956378 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/28/2021
No. 20-40599
towing company will be called to perform nonconsensual towing services for
the department on a given day.
I.
Plaintiff A-Pro Towing and Recovery, L.L.C. (A-Pro) alleges that
Cantu violated its rights to equal protection and due process by using his
position as city commissioner to divert government referrals away from
A-Pro and to Cantu family towing companies. Relying, inter alia, on the
affidavit of a former police department supervisor, A-Pro asserts that on
three unspecified occasions, Cantu called the police department’s rotation-
list manager on A-Pro’s assigned day, identified himself as “Commissioner
Cantu,” and told the manager to skip over A-Pro and direct all towing
requests to one of Cantu’s companies. On one of these occasions, the police
chief allegedly told the list manager to carry out Cantu’s instructions because
Cantu “[was] a city commissioner.” When the list manager expressed
concerns that Cantu was “improperly using the [l]ist and creating a
monopoly,” the police chief allegedly instructed the manager to drop the
issue because Cantu was a commissioner and therefore could “do what he
want[ed].” A-Pro also claims that the police chief would sometimes reassign
A-Pro’s days to a Cantu family company himself.
The district court granted Cantu summary judgment. A-Pro appeals.
II.
“This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying
the same standard as the district court.” Renfroe v. Parker, 974 F.3d 594, 599
(5th Cir. 2020). “Summary judgment is appropriate ‘if the movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a)). “A genuine issue of material fact exists when the evidence is such
that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.” Id.2
Case: 20-40599 Document: 00515956378 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/28/2021
No. 20-40599
“All facts and reasonable inferences are construed in favor of the nonmovant,
and the court should not weigh evidence or make credibility findings.” Id.III.
A.
A-Pro does not assert that Cantu discriminated against it on account
of its membership in a traditional protected class. Rather, it claims that
“Cantu made sure that Port Isabel police intentionally treated A-Pro
differently than how his family’s companies were treated.”
“A class-of-one equal-protection claim lies ‘where the plaintiff alleges
that [it] has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly
situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in
treatment.’” Integrity Collision Ctr. v. City of Fulshear, 837 F.3d 581, 586 (5th
Cir. 2016) (quoting Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000)).
“Typically, a class of one involves a discrete group of people, who do not
themselves qualify as a suspect class, alleging the government has singled
them out for differential treatment absent a rational basis.” Id. (quoting
Wood v. Collier, 836 F.3d 534, 541 (5th Cir. 2016)).
Assuming arguendo that a class-of-one equal-protection claim is
cognizable here, A-Pro’s claim fails. 1 “Because there is no suspect class, the
1
The Supreme Court has held that “a ‘class-of-one’ theory of equal protection has
no place in the public employment context.” Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agr., 553 U.S. 591,
594 (2008). See also id. at 605 (“[W]e have never found the Equal Protection Clause
implicated in the specific circumstance where, as here, government employers are alleged
to have made an individualized, subjective personnel decision in a seemingly arbitrary or
irrational manner.”). And this court has since held that Engquist’s bar “applies . . . to a
local government’s discretionary decision to include or not include a company on a non-
consent tow list,” Integrity, 837 F.3d at 586, as well as its decision to remove a company
from a non-consent tow list, see Rountree v. Dyson, 892 F.3d 681, 684–85 (5th Cir. 2018)
(“If a city has the discretion to choose from whom it contracts private services, then it must
equally retain the discretion to choose when to terminate such relationship.”). It is
3
Case: 20-40599 Document: 00515956378 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/28/2021
No. 20-40599
[government action] ‘must be upheld against equal protection challenge if
there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational
basis for the classification.’” Id. at 589 (quoting Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312,
320 (1993)).
Here, A-Pro’s evidence against Cantu (rather than against the police
chief or other actors) is an affidavit averring that, on a few occasions, Cantu
instructed the police to skip A-Pro because it had “an outstanding bond,”
expired insurance, or an “out of commission” status. These stated reasons
are obviously rational. And despite multiple opportunities to do so, A-Pro
has pointed to no evidence that A-Pro was qualified and able to provide
services on the specific days that Cantu allegedly redirected business away
from A-Pro. Accordingly, A-Pro’s equal protection claim fails.
A-Pro protests that it was Cantu’s burden to identify which dates
A-Pro was unqualified to tow, and that there is a “factual issue . . . as to
whether the preferential treatment Cantu arranged was due to A-Pro’s
qualifications, or Cantu’s rent-seeking.” But “the burden is on the
challenging party to negative ‘any reasonably conceivable state of facts that
could provide a rational basis.’” Id. (quoting Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v.
Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 367 (2001)). A-Pro has simply failed to carry that
burden. 2
arguable, then, that a decision about which towing company to call for a given job on a given
day is the kind of inherently discretionary decision that has been shielded from class-of-one
equal-protection challenges. But we need not decide that issue here because A-Pro’s claim
fails on the merits.
2
Because A-Pro has failed to show it was qualified to operate on the days in
question, it has also failed to show disparate treatment. For example, A-Pro provides no
evidence that Cantu companies were called to tow with outstanding bonds or expired
insurance. In other words, while A-Pro “generally alleges that other similarly situated
[companies] were treated differently, . . . [it] points to no specific [company or companies]
and provides no specifics as to their violations.” Rountree, 892 F.3d 681 at 685. “An
4
Case: 20-40599 Document: 00515956378 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/28/2021
No. 20-40599
B.
A-Pro also claims that “Cantu’s successful campaign to deprive
[A-Pro] of towing jobs violated its Fourteenth Amendment right to
occupational liberty.” See, e.g., San Jacinto Sav. & Loan v. Kacal, 928 F.2d
697, 702 (5th Cir. 1991) (“[T]he fifth and fourteenth amendments include
. . . the liberty to operate a legitimate business, free from arbitrary deprivation
by local police acting under the color of state law.”).
A-Pro’s due process claim suffers from some of the same defects as its
equal protection claim. For example, there is still no evidence to refute
Cantu’s stated reasons for diverting work away from A-Pro.
Moreover, an unpublished opinion suggests that A-Pro’s alleged
liberty deprivation is insufficient to be actionable. In Doss v. Morris, 642 F.
App’x 443 (5th Cir. 2016), this court observed that “government actions that
cause ‘a brief interruption’ of a person’s occupational calling do not amount
to a deprivation of [a] liberty interest in the same way as ‘a complete
prohibition of the right to engage in a calling.’” Id. at 447 (quoting Conn v.
Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286, 292 (1999)). The panel then interpreted our
precedent as recognizing that “a plaintiff’s liberty interest in operating a
business [is] not violated where ‘the government [has] not significantly
altered or deprived [a plaintiff] of his liberty interest in practicing [his
profession] or his property interests in the profits therefrom.” Id. (quoting
San Jacinto Sav. & Loan, 928 F.2d at 703) (last two alterations in original).
“Defendants’ conduct did not deprive Plaintiffs of their liberty interest in
operating their legal business” because “the evidence . . . failed to show that
allegation that others are treated differently, without more, is merely a legal conclusion that
we are not required to credit. [A-Pro]’s equal protection claim fails.” Id. (footnote
omitted).
5
Case: 20-40599 Document: 00515956378 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/28/2021
No. 20-40599
Plaintiffs’ ability to operate their business was significantly altered or
impaired.” Id.
A-Pro concedes that the relevant standard is whether its business was
“significantly altered or impaired.” Because the evidence suggests that
A-Pro was inconvenienced by only a “brief interruption” in its access to
government employment (more precisely, government referrals), this case is
unlike the cases in which the Supreme Court has recognized a “generalized
due process right to choose one’s field of private employment”—cases that
“all deal[t] with a complete prohibition of the right to engage in a calling.”
Conn, 526 U.S. at 291–92. In short, because A-Pro has not produced
evidence of a significant alteration or impairment of its business, A-Pro’s due
process claim fails as a matter of law.
We affirm.
6