IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JOHN T. DODERO,

et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No.: 3:20cv5358-RV/HTC

WALTON COUNTY, a political

subdivision of the State of Florida;

and MICHAEL A. ADKINSON, JR.,

in his official capacity as Walton

County Sheriff,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER

The entire country—and, in fact, much of the world—is currently in the midst

of a pandemic relating to the Covid-19 virus. The federal government and individual

states have taken various methods to try and combat this crisis, including, inter alia,

statewide lockdowns and forced social distancing. Walton County (like many counties

throughout the State of Florida) has temporarily closed its beaches via local ordinance.

The ordinance provides on its face that it is in effect until April 30, 2020, unless it is

extended. 

The plaintiffs are Gulf of Mexico beachfront property owners in the county, and

they have filed this case against the county and the sheriff to challenge the ordinance.

They allege, at bottom, that the beaches between their homes and the mean high water

line of the Gulf constitute their private backyards and that they are being denied the

full use and enjoyment of their property in violation of the United States and Florida

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 23 Filed 04/17/20 Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4

Constitutions and privacy rights. The plaintiffs base their claims for injunctive relief

on the Fourth Amendment (as a “seizure”), on the “Privacy Right” provision of the

Florida Constitution, and that the ordinance is in conflict with Executive Orders of

Florida’s Governor.

On April 6, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a preliminary

injunction (docs. 2). The defendants filed responses in opposition on April 10, 2020

(docs. 18, 20). I held a telephonic hearing of over two hours in length on April 13,

2020, at the conclusion of which I orally denied the plaintiffs’ motion. This order will

very briefly memorialize my oral ruling. 

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of

right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). It is “‘a very

far-reaching power, never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it.’”

Orr v. Shicker, 953 F.3d 490, 501 (11th Cir. 2020). To be entitled to this extraordinary

remedy and far-reaching power, the plaintiffs must first establish: (1) that they have

a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that they will suffer irreparable

injury if the relief is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm to

the non-movant; and (4) that the relief would serve the public interest. Schiavo ex rel.

Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225-26 (11th Cir. 2005). “Ordinarily the first

factor,” likelihood of success on the merits, “is the most important.” Garcia-Mir v.

Meese, 781 F.2d 1450, 1453 (11th Cir. 1986).

As I said at the April 13th hearing, the plaintiffs have not satisfied any of the

four factors. As for the first—and most important—factor, it is doubtful that the

plaintiffs will succeed on the merits. We are in the midst of a national health

emergency, and it seems highly likely at this stage of the case that the county has the

authority to take the measures that it has in order to address that emergency. It is

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 23 Filed 04/17/20 Page 2 of 4
Page 3 of 4

important to note in this context that there is no evidence in the record that the

defendants are precluding them from using their back porches, patios, decks, or

unimproved areas reasonably close to their property.1

 Although the plaintiffs want

(but are being denied) full access to their privately-owned property all the way down

to the mean high water line, they are not the only people who have had their property

rights temporarily curtailed during this national pandemic. To be sure, owners of

“non-essential” businesses have had to close their doors completely. I do not find the

county’s action to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment or of Florida’s privacy

rights (since this is really a property rights issue). I also find that the ordinance is

consistent with, and authorized by, the Governor’s Executive Order No. 20-68.

As for the second factor, the plaintiffs have not shown that being precluded

from accessing a portion of their property during a national pandemic constitutes an

irreparable injury. Whatever injury they sustain in not being able to fully access the

beach and water behind their homes is temporary and relatively minimal compared to

the potential harms that may result if there is increased exposure to this communicable

virus. For much the same reason, the third and fourth factors (whether the threatened

injury outweighs the harm to the defendants, and whether the requested relief would

serve the public interest) obviously weigh against granting the plaintiffs preliminary

injunctive relief.

For the reasons stated above and at the April 13th hearing, the plaintiffs’ motion

for a preliminary injunction (doc. 2) is DENIED.

1

And as I said during the hearing, some of the lots do not appear to have easily identifiable

vegetation lines between the homes and the water. Most do, however, and that distance seems to be

well over 10 yards. The county acknowledges that it does not construe the ordinance as applying

inland of the dune or vegetation line. Therefore, the defendants should not attempt to enforce the

ordinance within 10 yards of any permanent improvement.

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 23 Filed 04/17/20 Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of April, 2020

 /s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:20-cv-05358-RV-HTC Document 23 Filed 04/17/20 Page 4 of 4