The opinion
Case: 24-60644 Document: 54-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/16/2026
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________
FILED
January 16, 2026
No. 24-60644
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Surjit Singh; Santokh Singh; Satvinder Kaur,
Plaintiffs—Appellants,
versus
The City of Greenville, Mississippi; Martavis Moore,
Police Officer for City of Greenville, Mississippi; Carl Nichols, Chief Fire
Marshal for City of Greenville, Mississippi,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:22-CV-195
______________________________
Before Jones, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
We have reviewed the briefs, district court opinion, and pertinent
portions of the record and find no reversible error.
One of the plaintiff-appellants’ contentions merits further discussion.
The Singhs make much of the fact that the district court referenced Villareal
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 24-60644 Document: 54-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/16/2026
No. 24-60644
v. City of Laredo, 94 F.4th 374, 398 (5th Cir. 2024) (en banc), cert. granted,
judgment vacated, and remanded, Villareal v. Alaniz, 145 S. Ct. 368 (2024),
which the Supreme Court has since vacated. Regardless of the Supreme
Court’s decision, the district court reached the correct result. The Supreme
Court in Villareal remanded to this court with instructions to reconsider the
case in the light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U.S. 653, 658, 144 S. Ct. 1663,
1667 (2024). Gonzalez determined that where, as here, plaintiffs must
present comparator evidence about the treatment of similarly situated
people, they need not show examples of people in “virtually identical”
circumstances who received different treatment. Gonzalez, 602 U.S. at 658,
144 S. Ct. at 1667. But while Gonzalez lowered the bar for the type of
comparator evidence plaintiffs must present, it did not eliminate the
requirement altogether. Because the Singhs do not point to any evidence of
unequal treatment, they fail to satisfy even the less stringent standard
established by Villareal and Gonzalez. 1 The district court’s conclusion that
the Singhs’ claim fails because they “ha[ve] not provided one example of
another individual who was treated differently than them” remains valid in
the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision.
Moreover, even if the district court reached the incorrect conclusion
about the strength of the plaintiffs’ comparator evidence, qualified immunity
_____________________
1
Nor is their argument that the city targeted them alone sufficient to show unequal
treatment, because the record does not adequately support the Singhs’ contention. The
video evidence of the City’s spraying only captures the portion of the road in front of the
Singhs’ property, so it reveals nothing about whether further spraying happened at other
properties on the road. Furthermore, that the property adjacent to theirs suffered no visible
damage from herbicides does not foreclose the possibility that it or other properties were
sprayed. Thus, the Singhs have failed to demonstrate that they were singled out or targeted
with herbicide spraying.
2
Case: 24-60644 Document: 54-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/16/2026
No. 24-60644
shields the individual defendants and the absence of a pattern or practice
giving rise to a violation prevents municipal liability.
Finding no reversible error, we AFFIRM.
3