Jeanyva Ybarra v. San Patricio County, Texas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT February 11, 2026 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

JEANYVA YBARRA, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00196 § SAN PATRICIO COUNTY, TEXAS, § § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING AS MODIFIED MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Pending before the Court is Defendant San Patricio County, Texas’s (the County’s) motion to dismiss (D.E. 11). On December 11, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton issued a Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R, D.E. 25), recommending that Defendant’s motion be denied. The County timely filed its objections (D.E. 26) on December 23, 2025.

First, the County objects, arguing that the Magistrate Judge erred in relying on a Fifth Circuit panel opinion that is not yet enforceable. The Fifth Circuit case adopting a state-created danger cause of action for the first time in this circuit, Sterling v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, No. 24-60370, 2025 WL 3205505, at *16 (5th Cir. Nov. 17, 2025), remains pending pursuant to a petition for rehearing en banc. In the meantime, the mandate has been withheld by Fifth Circuit order, issued November 18, 2025.

1 / 3 The County further argues that the Fifth Circuit panel decision declared the elements of the state-created danger cause of action in a manner that conflicts with projected elements stated in prior Fifth Circuit opinions. The County apparently offers this to suggest the strength of the opposition to the Sterling panel opinion within the Fifth Circuit or to complain of the inaccuracy of the elements that the Magistrate Judge applied.

In order to maintain the status quo during this time of uncertainty with respect to the state-created danger cause of action, the Court SUSTAINS the objection and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion to dismiss (D.E. 11) to the extent that it challenges the state-created danger cause of action. The County may refile its challenge after the Sterling panel decision is withdrawn or becomes final. At that time, the County may also raise any remaining concerns regarding its second objection regarding the sufficiency of the pleadings to support Plaintiff’s state-created danger theory. In the meantime, the second objection is OVERRULED AS MOOT.

Third, the County objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff has stated sufficient facts of a County-approved policy that was the moving force behind a constitutional violation to support the Monell claim. In support of this objection, the County recites a number of prior Monell rulings from this Court. This argument fails to take into consideration that each case involves different actors, different conduct, and different allegations.

The County has failed to demonstrate that any of the prior cases are sufficiently similar to this case to support an objection. The County has not otherwise challenged the / 3 specific standards applied or the interpretation of the allegations. The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s analysis, including the Monell rubric, pleading standards, and the facts alleged in the pleading and finds no error. The objection is OVERRULED.

Having reviewed the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation, as well as the County’s objections, and all other relevant documents in the record, and having made a de novo disposition of the portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation to which objections were specifically directed, the Court SUSTAINS the first objection, OVERRULES AS MOOT the second objection, and OVERRULES the third objection.

The Court therefore DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion to dismiss (D.E. 11) with respect to its challenge to the state-created danger cause of action. The Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge with respect to the Monell cause of action and DENIES the motion (D.E. 11) in that regard.

ORDERED on February 11, 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3/3