Case 1:17-cv-00229 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 11/06/17 Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
CAMERON COUNTY HOUSING
AUTHORITY and COMMUNITY
HOUSING & ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF PORT ISABEL, CITY OF
PORT ISABEL CITY COMMISSION, and
PORT ISABEL PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Cameron County Housing Authority (the “Housing Authority”) and
Community Housing & Economic Development Corporation (the “CHEDC”) (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) hereby complain of Defendants City of Port Isabel, Port Isabel City Commission,
and Port Isabel Planning and Zoning Commission (collectively, “Defendants”), and in support
thereof, would respectfully show the Court as follows:
I.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.

This lawsuit arises because Defendants egregiously sought to exploit disaster

relief efforts for the wrongful purpose of promoting housing segregation in Port Isabel, Texas.
Defendants’ conduct constitutes a violation of federal law, and resulted in Plaintiffs suffering
significant economic damages in December 2015, including the loss of federal disaster relief
funds. More specifically, Defendants employed discriminatory efforts to prevent Plaintiffs from
rebuilding a multi-family affordable housing development for low-income individuals and
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 1

 Case 1:17-cv-00229 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 11/06/17 Page 2 of 17

families known as The Neptune Apartments, located at 407 Summit Street, Port Isabel, Texas
78578, which had been rendered uninhabitable by Hurricane Dolly. Ultimately, in December
2015, the Housing Authority lost millions of dollars in federal grant funding simply because
Defendants refused to authorize the necessary zoning changes and use permits based on the
national origin and familial status of the tenants. Plaintiffs were, therefore, unable to rebuild the
complex, which had a profoundly disproportionate impact upon Latino residents of Port Isabel.
2.

Plaintiffs expended significant time and effort in an attempt to rebuild the

complex, and thereby provide an affordable housing opportunity for the low-income (primarily
Latino) residents of Port Isabel. Indeed, Plaintiffs went the extra mile to develop a plan that the
community would support, engaging in extensive community engagement efforts. Ultimately,
however, it became clear that the real intent of the concerned Anglo residents was to prevent
persons with Latino national origin or ancestry and families with children from returning to the
neighborhood from which they had been displaced by Hurricane Dolly.
3.

As part of Plaintiffs’ community engagement efforts, during Summer 2015,

Plaintiffs and/or its partners organized and conducted at least two community meetings with
residents from the neighborhood surrounding the development site.

The purpose of this

community engagement was to work cooperatively with the residents to create a design that all
interested parties, including the neighborhood residents would support. Despite the fact that the
population of Port Isabel and Cameron County is overwhelmingly Latino, the overwhelming
majority of the residents who attended these meetings were Anglo, and all attendees at both
meetings were vehemently opposed to any multi-family development being constructed on the
site.
4.

During these meetings, the Anglo residents also displayed their true motives,

espousing classic examples of camouflaged discriminatory comments, such as not wanting
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 2

 Case 1:17-cv-00229 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 11/06/17 Page 3 of 17

“those people” to come back, because the neighborhood had been “cleaned up,” and multi-family
residents would bring “drugs and crime” back to the neighborhood. Residents also made
comments based on stereotypes about Latino persons including larger families sizes and loud
celebrations, and comments about children being outside too often, indicating a bias against
families with children.
5.

In direct and explicit reference to the area residents’ opposition, City officials

acceded to the discrimination, expressing their support for the opponents, revealing their own
discriminatory attitudes, and ultimately taking a series of impermissible actions intended to
derail the project.
6.

Defendants’ actions were the result of intentional discriminatory conduct driven

by animus against people with or perceived to have national origins other than the United States
and families with children. In addition, Defendants’ conduct had a profoundly disproportionate
impact on persons of Latino national origin or ancestry, which make up 99% of the Housing
Authority’s residents and tenant waiting list, and families with children, which make up 74% of
the Housing Authority’s tenants and waiting list. Defendants’ actions also have the purpose and
effect of perpetuating segregation in the City of Port Isabel by denying families and individuals
the right to live in a particular neighborhood based on their national origin and familial status.
7.

Defendants’ wrongful and discriminatory actions, which had the purpose and

effect of disallowing, delaying, blocking, and otherwise interfering with the attempt by Plaintiffs
to rebuild the Neptune Apartments constitutes a violation of federal fair housing laws. By this
lawsuit, Plaintiffs seek redress for the significant harm suffered as a result of Defendants’
unlawful conduct.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 3

 Case 1:17-cv-00229 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 11/06/17 Page 4 of 17

II.
PARTIES
8.

Plaintiff Cameron County Housing Authority came into existence in 1977. The

Housing Authority is composed of 320 public housing units, 1006 Section VIII and 177
conventional units. The Housing Authority’s jurisdiction is from South Padre Island to La Feria,
Texas in Cameron County. The Housing Authority’s mission is to provide low-income families
with safe, decent and affordable housing, and to promote programs that lead to economic selfsufficiency and enhance the quality of life of its resident families. The Housing Authority is
committed to developing and implementing programs that will assist resident families to become
self-sufficient, provide for supportive services and coordinate efforts with other agencies to
address the needs of the community. Ninety-nine percent of the Housing Authority’s tenant
households are Hispanic/Latino, 70% are Extremely Low Income, 22% are Very Low Income,
and 74% are families with children.
9.

Plaintiff Community Housing & Economic Development Corporation is a public

facility corporation created and owned by the Cameron Counting Housing Authority. The
Neptune Apartment complex, which is the property underlying this dispute, is owned by the
Community Housing & Economic Development Corporation.
10.

Defendant City of Port Isabel is a municipal corporation located in Cameron

County, Texas. The City of Port Isabel is organized under and operates by virtue of the rules of
the State of Texas as a home rule unit of local government. The City of Port Isabel government
is comprised of the Mayor, the City Commission, various subsidiary boards and commissions,
the City Manager, and professional staff. The City of Port Isabel is the recipient of federal funds
including Community Development Block Grant funds for Disaster Recovery related to
Hurricane Dolly, other housing and community development funds from the U.S. Department of
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 4

 Case 1:17-cv-00229 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 11/06/17 Page 5 of 17

Housing and Urban Development, and the Economic Development Administration (EDA). As a
recipient of these and other federal funds, the City of Port Isabel is subject to Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin
in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.
11.

Defendant City of Port Isabel Commission is comprised of the Mayor and four

elected Commissioners, one of whom shall be designated as Commissioner No. l, one as
Commissioner No. 2, one as Commissioner No. 3, and one as Commissioner No. 4. Whenever
the City Commission shall have adopted a Master Plan recommended by the City Planning and
Zoning Commission, no public buildings, streets, alleys, ways, viaducts, bridges, railroads,
terminals, parks, parkways, playgrounds, aviation fields, athletic fields, school grounds, fire
station sites or any other public grounds or public improvements, or parts thereof, shall be
constructed until and unless the location shall be recommended by the City Planning and Zoning
Commission, and approved by the City Commission; provided, however, that in case of its
disapproval, the City Planning and Zoning Commission shall communicate its reason for
disapproval to the City Commission and thereupon, by majority vote of the City Commission, it
shall have the power of overruling the disapproval.
12.

Defendant Port Isabel City Planning and Zoning Commission is comprised of

seven members, all of whom must be residents of the City of Port Isabel. The members are
appointed by the City Commission. The Mayor and each Commissioner each recommend one
Board member, which recommendations must be approved by the City Commission. Each of
these five Planning and Zoning Board members are identified by City Commissioner position,
and each Board member’s turn coincides with the terms of the Mayor or Commissioner who
recommends the Board member. The other two members of the Planning and Zoning Board are
chosen at large by a majority vote of the City Commission. The function and duty of the City
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 5

 Case 1:17-cv-00229 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 11/06/17 Page 6 of 17

Planning and Zoning Commission is to make, or cause to be made, and adopt a Master Plan for
the physical development of the city, subject to approval by the City Commission. Port Isabel
Code of Ordinances § 32.019. If the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends against a
proposed variance, zoning change or special use request, or if 20% of the property owners within
200 feet of the site in question file a letter of protest, the request may be approved and passed by
the City Commission only upon a two-thirds vote in favor of the proposed request. Id. §
160.236.
III.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
13.

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3),

2201, and 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 3613(a).
IV.
RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A.

After Hurricane Dolly Irreparably Damaged the Neptune Apartment Complex, the
Housing Authority Was Awarded Community Development Block Grant for
Disaster Recovery Funds to Rebuild.
14.

In July 2008, Hurricane Dolly struck the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas,

rendering the 16-unit multifamily Neptune Apartments uninhabitable. The Neptune Apartment
complex was owned by Plaintiff CHEDC, and operated by Plaintiff CCHA.
15.

The Housing Authority was awarded CDBG-DR funding through the Lower Rio

Grande Valley Development Council (the “LRGVDC”) to rebuild Neptune Apartments as a 26unit mixed income development in April 2014. The City of Port Isabel initially supported the
Housing Authority’s planned redevelopment of the Neptune Apartments because of the severe
shortage of affordable housing in Port Isabel, particularly for people who work in the City, the
success of similar developments in other cities, and the way the design fit into the neighborhood.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 6

 Case 1:17-cv-00229 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 11/06/17 Page 7 of 17

B.

Plaintiffs’ Redevelopment of the Neptune Apartments Would Have Involved Latino
Residents Returning to a Highly Anglo Neighborhood.
16.

Port Isabel is a tourist destination located in Cameron County, Texas, on an

estuary of the Gulf of Mexico, across from South Padre Island.
17.

The population of both the Lower Rio Grande River Valley, and Cameron

County, are overwhelmingly Latino. The City of Port Isabel has a significantly lower percentage
of Latino residents than the county as a whole, and there is a far greater percentage of non-Latino
Whites in Port Isabel than the surrounding areas. While Cameron County is 88.5% Latino and
10.1% Non-Hispanic White, Port Isabel is 74.0% Latino and 23.4% Non-Hispanic White, with
the Latino population concentrated in specific areas of the City. (2015 ACS)
18.

Perhaps more importantly for purposes of this lawsuit, the immediate

neighborhood surrounding the Neptune Apartment site is significantly more affluent and Anglo
than the surrounding areas. The Neptune Apartments site is located in Census Tract 123.01,
which has a Median Family Income (MFI) of $59,766, over $27,000 higher than the MFI for
Cameron County ($32,000).

Indeed, in stark contrast to the surrounding areas, the area

immediately surrounding the Neptune site is majority Anglo. Based on the U.S. Census Bureau,
2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, 64% of the 623 residents in the
neighborhood surrounding the Neptune Apartment site are non-Hispanic White.
19.

Historically, affordable housing in Port Isabel has been primarily concentrated in

an area further inland from the Neptune Apartments, on the other side of Highway 100. This
area has historically been referred to as “Little Mexico,” and is located in close proximity to
industrial sites. The Neptune Apartment site, by contrast, is located on a desirable location
overlooking Laguna Madre – a beautiful bay.
20.

During the process, which ultimately resulted in Plaintiffs being denied the ability

to receive the federal funds, or redevelop the Neptune Apartments, comments were made by
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 7

 Case 1:17-cv-00229 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 11/06/17 Page 8 of 17

members of the community and public officials suggesting that affordable housing should be
limited to the area known as “Little Mexico.”
C.

Vehement Anglo Opposition To The Neptune Re-Development Erupts.
21.

The Neptune Apartments are located on three and four fifths lots between on

Summit Street, and CHEDC owns an additional lot across the street from the Neptune site. Two
of these lots are zoned A-1 Multifamily, two lots are zoned R-1 Single Family Residential, and
the lot across the street is zoned R-2 Duplex/Fourplex Residential. The Neptune site is bordered
by a motel on one side and single-family homes on the other. The surrounding blocks are a mix
of A-1, R-1, and R-2 zoning. Because the original plans for the redevelopment project included
constructing multi-family units on the lots zoned for single-family use, it was necessary for the
Port Isabel Planning and Zoning Commission to approve re-zoning the site in order for the
project to proceed. On March 11, 2015, during a Planning and Zoning Commission (the “P&Z
Commission”) meeting to approve rezoning and replatting necessary for the proposed mixedincome development, it became apparent that there was public opposition to the project.
22.

Approximately twenty members of the public, overwhelmingly Anglo, appeared

at the March 11, 2015 public hearing to oppose the rezoning request. Public testimony in
opposition to rebuilding was based on camouflaged racial expressions and discriminatory
statements about property value declining, concerns that the tenants would be the same “type of
tenants” as public housing, and concerns that the units would be “Section 8” housing.
Commission Members made similarly biased statements.
23.

The City Secretary also received five written comments from neighborhood

residents opposing the rebuilding for reasons including, “multifamily housing would change [the
neighborhood] – for the worse”; assertions both that the neighborhood was predominantly single-

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 8

 Case 1:17-cv-00229 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 11/06/17 Page 9 of 17

family and that there was already too much multifamily housing; and requests to “make it
something nice.”
24.

One member of the Commission stated that the Housing Authority should

purchase property on the other side of Highway 100 where other public and affordable housing is
located. The other side of Highway 100 is lower-income, closer to the port and industrial uses, is
the location of all other public housing, and was historically referred to as “Little Mexico.” The
P&Z Commission voted unanimously to deny replatting and rezoning for the Neptune
Apartments.
25.

Thereafter, the Housing Authority engaged Community Development Corporation

at Brownsville (“CDCB”) to assist with the development of the project. CDCB also partnered
with buildingcommunityWORKSHOP (“[bc] Workshop”), a nonprofit community design center,
which focuses on bringing design thinking to underserved communities. [bc] Workshop has
tremendous expertise and experience in community engagement efforts, and a proven track
record in forming strong relationships through collaborative design work and educational
outreach activities.

Part of [bc] Workshop’s mission is the recognition that it must first

understand the social, economic, and environmental issues facing a community before beginning
work.
26.

During Summer 2015, the Housing Authority and [bc] Workshop set out on an

ambitious community engagement effort, which included, among other things, going door-todoor through the neighborhood and handing out flyers, meeting with residents and community
officials, and organizing community meetings.

Throughout the course of this community

engagement, discriminatory statements and camouflaged racial expressions were made by
members of the public, including:
 Statements that “those people” should not be living in this neighborhood.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 9

 Case 1:17-cv-00229 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 11/06/17 Page 10 of 17

 Statements that public housing residents did not deserve to live near the bay because
other residents “worked harder.”
 Allegations that the development would cause “overcrowding” because large families
would reside in one apartment.
 Allegations that the potential residents were lazy and criminal.
 Allegations that there would be overcrowding in the apartments and “you people
probably want to bring your grandma” based on stereotypes about Latino families.
 Statements that residents did not want children living in the units and allegations that
units would be occupied by “a single mom with eight kids.”
27.

CDCB and [bc] Workshop spent a significant amount of time and money in their

community engagement efforts, conducting at least two community meetings with residents from
the neighborhood surrounding the development site.
28.

Despite the fact that the population of Port Isabel and Cameron County is

overwhelmingly Latino, the majority of the residents who attended these meetings were Anglo,
and all attendees at both meetings were vehemently opposed to any multi-family development
being constructed on the site.
29.

During these meetings, the Anglo residents also displayed their true motives,

espousing classic examples of camouflaged discriminatory comments, such as not wanting
“those people” to come back, because the neighborhood had been “cleaned up,” and multi-family
residents would bring “drugs and crime” back to the neighborhood.
D.

Racial Tensions Were So High That When a Second P&Z Commission Meeting Was
Scheduled to Consider the Re-Development, the Housing Authority Was Asked Not
to Attend – And The Meeting Was Subsequently Canceled.
30.

Plaintiffs attempted repeatedly to respond to issues raised by the P&Z

Commission and the public, including reducing units on the site and changing the plan from a
single building to “cottage style” units. A second Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of the

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 10

 Case 1:17-cv-00229 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 11/06/17 Page 11 of 17

Planning and Zoning Commission on the Housing Authority’s request to replat and rezone the
Neptune site for the new proposal was scheduled for Wednesday, June 10, 2015.
31.

By the time this second meeting was scheduled, however, racial tensions

surrounding the redevelopment of the Neptune site had reached a fever pitch. City Manager,
Jared Hockema, called Daisy Flores, the Executive Director of the Housing Authority, and
requested that she not attend the meeting because it would be “explosive and embarrassing.”
32.

Ms. Flores asked if attending the meeting would put her or her staff at risk of

physical harm, and the City Manager’s only response was – “just don’t come.” The Housing
Authority pulled the item at Mr. Hockema’s request and out of concern for the safety of the
Housing Authority’s staff.
33.

Thereafter, the P&Z Commission officially canceled the June 10 meeting. It is

unclear if the P&Z Commission ever reported its denial of Plaintiffs’ requests to the City
Commission as required by law, but there is no record of the City Commission ever considering
issues related to the re-development of the Neptune Apartments.
E.

Even After the Housing Authority Substantially Whittled Down the Plan—To The
Point That Re-Zoning Was No Longer Even Necessary—The City Denied the Plan
Outright.
34.

In July 2015, the Housing Authority again revised its plan for the Neptune

rebuilding project, maintaining the reduced number of units and splitting the units between
several sites on the same street. This proposal would not have required rezoning, only review by
the Planning and Zoning Commission and permitting from the City. After two community
planning meetings held on the new proposal, the Housing Authority revised the proposal in
accordance with community feedback, eliminating any multifamily building and proposing all
units as single family or duplex. In September 2015, the Housing Authority met with members
of City Council and the Mayor and were told that the City would not issue permits for the
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 11

 Case 1:17-cv-00229 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 11/06/17 Page 12 of 17

rebuilding unless the Housing Authority reduced the number of units to 10, although the City had
previously told the Housing Authority that there would be no problem with permits for the 16
unit plan.
35.

The Housing Authority submitted the applications for permitting for 10 units –

four single-family homes and six units in a multifamily building – to the Port Isabel building
inspector on October 28, 2015. On November 10, 2015, the Housing Authority met, after
business hours, with building inspector Larry Ellis, City Manager Jared Hockema, and Mayor
Joe Vega and were told that the City of Port Isabel would not permit multifamily buildings (on a
site zoned multifamily) and would not permit more than four units. Eliminating the six units in
the multifamily building would have eliminated the affordable units set aside for the lowestincome families in the planned redevelopment.

The Housing Authority submitted plat

amendments for four single-family homes on November 13, 2015.
36.

The Housing Authority asked for LRGVDC approval of a further reduction in

units. On November 24, 2015, LRGVDC sent a letter to the Housing Authority informing the
Housing Authority that their request to reduce the number of units to four was being refused and
asking if the Housing Authority would be able to close on and permit ten units by December 1,
2015. On November 25, 2016, the Housing Authority sent a letter to LRGVDC informing the
COG that they would be unable to close on the 10 single-family units the COG had approved
because the City of Port Isabel, “has indicated that they will only approve building permits for
four single family homes.”
V.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
37.

All conditions precedent to Plaintiffs’ recovery have occurred or have been

waiver or excused.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 12

 Case 1:17-cv-00229 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 11/06/17 Page 13 of 17

VI.
CAUSES OF ACTION
A.

First Cause of Action: Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a)
38.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the facts and allegations contained in the

foregoing paragraphs as fully set forth herein.
39.

Defendants, through their actions and the actions of their agents, are liable for the

violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).
B.

Second Cause of Action: Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b)
40.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the facts and allegations contained in the

foregoing paragraphs as fully set forth herein.
41.

Defendants, through their actions and the actions of their agents, are liable for the

violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b).
C.

Third Cause of Action: Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c)
42.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the facts and allegations contained in the

foregoing paragraphs as fully set forth herein.
43.

Defendants, through their actions and the actions of their agents, are liable for the

violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c).
D.

Fourth Cause of Action: Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)
44.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the facts and allegations contained in the

foregoing paragraphs as fully set forth herein.
45.

Defendants, through their actions and the actions of their agents, are liable for the

violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f).

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 13

 Case 1:17-cv-00229 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 11/06/17 Page 14 of 17

E.

Fifth Cause of Action: Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3617
46.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the facts and allegations contained in the

foregoing paragraphs as fully set forth herein.
47.

Defendants, through their actions and the actions of their agents, are liable for the

violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3617.
F.

Sixth Cause of Action: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000d
et seq. Against Defendant City of Port Isabel Only
48.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the facts and allegations contained in the

foregoing paragraphs as fully set forth herein.
49.

Defendants, through their actions and the actions of their agents, are liable for the

violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000d
et seq., under which, “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or
national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
G.

Seventh Cause of Action: Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981
50.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the facts and allegations contained in the

foregoing paragraphs as fully set forth herein.
51.

Defendants’ actions deny minority citizens the same rights as are enjoyed by

white residents to make and enforce contracts in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
H.

Eighth Cause of Action: Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1982
52.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the facts and allegations contained in the

foregoing paragraphs as fully set forth herein.
53.

Defendants’ actions deny minority citizens the same rights as are enjoyed by

white residents to lease, hold and otherwise enjoy real property in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1982.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 14

 Case 1:17-cv-00229 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 11/06/17 Page 15 of 17

I.

Ninth Cause of Action: Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
54.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the facts and allegations contained in the

foregoing paragraphs as fully set forth herein.
55.

Defendants’ discriminatory actions deny minority citizens equal protection of the

law by discriminating on the basis of race and national origin in the leasing of real property, in
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
VII.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of all issues in this
case.
VIII.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court:
a.

Enter a declaratory judgment that the actions of Defendants are in violation of the

Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964; and the Equal Protection Claus of the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
b.

Issue a permanent injunction restraining Defendants, their agents, employees,

representatives, or any other person acting directly or indirectly with them from unlawfully
interfering with Plaintiffs’ developments, and directing Defendants to take all affirmative steps
necessary to remedy the effects of the illegal, discriminatory conduct described herein and to
prevent similar occurrences in the future;
c.

Award compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the jury that

would fully compensate Plaintiffs for the loss that has been caused by the conduct of Defendants
alleged herein;
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 15

 Case 1:17-cv-00229 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 11/06/17 Page 16 of 17

d.

Award punitive damages to Plaintiffs in an amount to be determined by the jury

that would punish Defendants for their willful, wanton, and reckless conduct alleged herein and
that would effectively deter Defendants from engaging in similar conduct in the future;
e.

Award Plaintiffs its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

3613(c)(2); and
f.

Order such relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 16

 Case 1:17-cv-00229 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 11/06/17 Page 17 of 17

Respectfully submitted,

BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN LLP
By: /s/ Benjamin L. Riemer
Benjamin L. Riemer
Attorney-in-Charge
Texas Bar No. 24065976
Southern District No. 1146374
briemer@bellnunnally.com
1400 One McKinney Plaza
3232 McKinney Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75204-2429
Telephone: (214) 740-1400
Telecopier: (214) 740-1499
and

TEXAS APPLESEED
Melissa Madison Sloan
Of Counsel
Texas Bar No. 24049374
Southern District No. (pending pro hac vice
admission)
msloan@texasappleseed.net
1609 Shoal Creek Blvd., Ste. 201
Austin, Texas 78701-1022
Telephone: (512) 473-2800
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
3597492_4.docx / 10808.3

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 17

 JS 44 (Rev. 06/17)

Case 1:17-cv-00229 Document 1-1 Filed in TXSD on 11/06/17 Page 1 of 1

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

City of Port Isabel, City of Port Isabel City Commission, and Port
Isabel Planning and Zoning Commission

Cameron County Housing Authority and Community Housing &
Economic Development Corporation
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Cameron

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
NOTE:

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

Cameron

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys (If Known)

Benjamin L. Riemer, Bell Nunnally & Martin, LLP, 3232 McKinney Ave.,
Ste. 1400, Dallas, Texas 75204
Phone: 214-740-1400; Facsimile: 214-740-1499

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
u 1

U.S. Government
Plaintiff

u 3

Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)

u 2

U.S. Government
Defendant

u 4

Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
Citizen of This State
u 1

u
u
u
u
u

u 2

u

2

Incorporated and Principal Place
of Business In Another State

u 5

u 5

Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country

u 3

u

3

Foreign Nation

u 6

u 6

u
u
u
u
u
u
u

u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u

u
u
u
u
u
u

Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

TORTS

110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran’s Benefits
160 Stockholders’ Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise

REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property

u
u
u
u
u
u
u

PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers’
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
448 Education

and One Box for Defendant)
PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place
u 4
u 4
of Business In This State

Citizen of Another State

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
CONTRACT

DEF
u 1

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

PERSONAL INJURY
u 365 Personal Injury Product Liability
u 367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
u 368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
u 370 Other Fraud
u 371 Truth in Lending
u 380 Other Personal
Property Damage
u 385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
u 463 Alien Detainee
u 510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
u 530 General
u 535 Death Penalty
Other:
u 540 Mandamus & Other
u 550 Civil Rights
u 555 Prison Condition
u 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement

u 625 Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21 USC 881
u 690 Other

LABOR
u 710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
u 720 Labor/Management
Relations
u 740 Railway Labor Act
u 751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
u 790 Other Labor Litigation
u 791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act

BANKRUPTCY
u 422 Appeal 28 USC 158
u 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
u 820 Copyrights
u 830 Patent
u 835 Patent - Abbreviated
New Drug Application
u 840 Trademark
SOCIAL SECURITY
u 861 HIA (1395ff)
u 862 Black Lung (923)
u 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
u 864 SSID Title XVI
u 865 RSI (405(g))

FEDERAL TAX SUITS
u 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
u 871 IRS—Third Party
26 USC 7609

IMMIGRATION
u 462 Naturalization Application
u 465 Other Immigration
Actions

OTHER STATUTES
u 375 False Claims Act
u 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
3729(a))
u 400 State Reapportionment
u 410 Antitrust
u 430 Banks and Banking
u 450 Commerce
u 460 Deportation
u 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
u 480 Consumer Credit
u 490 Cable/Sat TV
u 850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
u 890 Other Statutory Actions
u 891 Agricultural Acts
u 893 Environmental Matters
u 895 Freedom of Information
Act
u 896 Arbitration
u 899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
u 950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
u 1 Original
Proceeding

u 2 Removed from
State Court

u 3

u 6 Multidistrict
Litigation Transfer
(specify)
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
Remanded from
Appellate Court

u 4 Reinstated or
Reopened

u 5 Transferred from
Another District

u 8 Multidistrict
Litigation Direct File

Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:

Defendants' wrongfully blocked Plaintiffs' efforts to rebuild a multi-family housing complex.

u CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
VII. REQUESTED IN
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
JUDGE
DATE

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
u Yes
u No
JURY DEMAND:

DEMAND $

DOCKET NUMBER

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

/s/ Benjamin L. Riemer

11/06/2017
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #

AMOUNT

APPLYING IFP

JUDGE

MAG. JUDGE