Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Robert Barroca, proceeding pro se, sued the Hayward Area Recreation and Parks District and several employees over events at Meek Estate Park. The court had dismissed every claim except a Section 1983 Fourteenth Amendment selective-enforcement claim against Ranger Hillary Fitzpatrick. Barroca challenged his August 31, 2023 citation under Ordinance 19(a), which generally requires pets to be restrained on a leash or device no longer than six feet. Fitzpatrick had seen him feeding about 15 to 20 cats. He said at least some were his, and she explained that owned cats had to be leashed. He refused and received citations under Ordinances 19(a) and 4(a). Barroca also said he wanted a citation so he could challenge Fitzpatrick's interpretation and enforcement of the ordinance.
On September 11, Barroca again acknowledged that unleashed cats in his presence were his, but Fitzpatrick did not cite him. After he raised his voice, she asked him to leave. Moments later, she encountered another parkgoer whose dog was restrained on a retractable leash longer than six feet. She warned that person about leash length but did not cite him, explaining that the restrained dog was substantially in compliance. It was her first encounter with that parkgoer. Barroca relied on the different outcomes, and on his own September 11 removal, as evidence that he had been singled out. Fitzpatrick moved for summary judgment on September 2, 2026.
Under Rule 56, the court asked whether the evidence, viewed favorably to Barroca, permitted a reasonable jury to find for him. A class-of-one plaintiff must show intentional treatment different from others similarly situated and no rational basis for that difference. The comparator must be similar in all material respects, with an extremely high degree of similarity; the court applied that requirement strictly because Barroca invoked a class-of-one theory rather than a group-based classification.
The Court’s Holding
The court found three undisputed material differences. Barroca's cats had no leashes, while the comparator's dog was leashed despite the excessive leash length. Barroca claimed multiple cats, while the comparator had one dog. Barroca also had a history of warnings concerning his interactions with the cats. Although he disputed receiving a warning specifically about Ordinance 19(a), he did not dispute earlier warnings about feeding the cats. The court additionally noted that Barroca asked to be cited, unlike the comparator. These distinctions defeated the demanding similarly-situated requirement.
The court independently identified rational bases for the enforcement choices. Even an over-length leash can provide more control than no leash by helping prevent an animal from approaching people or running away. Multiple unrestrained animals can present a greater likelihood of damage to park resources or landscaping than one animal. Prior warnings can also justify a different response: Barroca had disregarded warnings about feeding cats, while no evidence showed that the comparator had previously violated or been warned about a park ordinance. Finally, Barroca affirmatively requested a citation, supplying another distinction relevant to enforcement.
Those rational bases also defeated Barroca's intentional-discrimination argument. He pointed to Fitzpatrick's treatment of the dog owner as evidence of animus, but intentional differential treatment alone did not establish this class-of-one claim. Because the required comparator similarity was absent and rational bases existed, the claim failed regardless of whether Fitzpatrick acted intentionally. The court granted Fitzpatrick's motion because the undisputed facts did not support selective enforcement. It expressly did not reach her separate qualified-immunity argument.
Key Takeaways
- A class-of-one equal protection claimant must establish an extremely high degree of similarity with the proposed comparator in all material respects.
- The absence of any leash, the number of animals involved, and prior enforcement history materially distinguished Barroca from the dog owner who received only a warning.
- The court independently identified rational bases for distinguishing complete nonrestraint from an over-length leash, multiple animals from one animal, and a repeat enforcement history from a first encounter.
- Evidence of animus or intentional differential treatment could not overcome the absence of a sufficiently similar comparator and the presence of rational bases for the citation.
- Summary judgment disposed of the sole remaining claim against Fitzpatrick, and the court left her qualified-immunity defense undecided.
Why It Matters
The decision shows how the class-of-one framework can resolve an enforcement dispute at summary judgment without minimizing the underlying ordinance violation. Both men could have violated the six-foot leash rule, yet that shared feature did not erase differences in restraint, animal count, enforcement history, or Barroca's request for a citation. The court treated those circumstances as material both to comparator similarity and to whether rational reasons supported different enforcement responses.
The ruling also separates intentional treatment from the complete equal protection test. Evidence suggesting personal animus did not eliminate Barroca's burden to disprove a rational basis for the distinction. By granting judgment on those grounds and declining to address qualified immunity, the court resolved the remaining claim on the merits of the selective-enforcement theory rather than on immunity.