FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT MARCH 29, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 14945 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 1 8 8 3 - C V- T - 2 6 - T GW M E L A B E L E , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s G R A N T T O L B E R T , R O N A L I F F , D O E S , D o e s : O n e , T w o , T h r e e , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 29, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an dP R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

M el A bel e app ea l s pro se an order thatdi sm i ss ed hi s S ec on d A m ended C om pl a i ntf

orf a i l ur e t o s t a t e ac l a i m unde rthe R a c ke t e e rI nf l ue nc e d a nd C orrupt O r g a n iz a tio n s A c t a n d r e f u s e d to e x e r c is e s u p p le m e n ta l ju r is d ic tio n o v e rh is rem ai n i n g cl ai m s o n th e g ro u n d th atth ey aro se o n l y u n d er st at e l aw . B ecau se A b e le f a ile d to a lle g e th e d e f

e n d a n ts c o m m itte dp r e d ic a te a c ts th a t w o u ld const i tut e apatt ern o f r ac ket ee ri ng ac t i vi ty, w e a ff i rm the di sm i ss al w i th p re j ud i ce o f A b e le ’s c la im u n d e rth e R I C O A c t. B e c au s e w e c o n c lu d e A b e le s ta te dac la im tha tthe de f

e nda nt s vi ol a t e d hi s r i ghtt o due pr oc e s s of l a w , w e r e ve r s e the d is m is s a l o f

th a t c la im a n d r e m a n df o rf u rth e rp r o c e e d in g s . I . B AC KG RO UN D A bel e f i l ed a c om pl ai ntagai nstG rantT ol bert , R on A l i ff , and three un nam ed de f e nda nt s tha ta l l e ge d vi ol a t i ons of the T a ki ngs C l aus e of

the F i f th a nd F o u rt een th A m en d m en t s, th e R IC O A ct , p ri n ci p l es o f co n st i tu t i o n al d u e p ro cess a nd va r i ous s t a t e l a w s w he n the de f e nda nt s de s tr oy e d a nd c onde m ne d s e ve r a l of A be l e ’ s pr ope rt i e s , r e m ove d e l e c tr i c m e t e r s f r om f ourpr i va t e r e s i de nc e s , a nd r e f u s e d to is s u e A b e le s e v e r a l p e rm its . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d is m is s e ds u as p o n te A b e le ’s c o m p la in t f

o rala c ko f

s u b je c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n . W e r e v e r s e da n dh e ld tha t“ A be l e ’ s c om pl a i ntr a i s e d s e ve r a l f e de r a l que s t i ons : ( 1) w he the rthe defe nd ant s vi ol at ed the R ac ket ee r I nfl uenced and C orruptO rgani za t i on s A ct3

(R IC O ), 18 U . S . C . se ct i on 19 61 etse q. ; (2) w hether the defendant s vi ol at ed A b e le ’s c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t to d u e p r o c e s s o f la w ; a n d( 3 ) w h e th e rth e d e f e n d a n ts vi ol a t e d the T a ki ngs C l aus e of the F i f th a nd F ourt e e nth A m e ndm e nt s t o the C on st i tut i on . ” A bel e v. T ol bert , N o. 04 -148 85 (11th C i r. M ay3, 20 05 ) ( per curi am ). O n rem and, the di stri ctcourti nstruct ed A bel e t o fi l e an am ended co m p l ai n t , b u td i sm i ssed su a sp o n t e A b el e’ s am en d ed co m p l ai n tb ecau se i tw as a

“ ‘ qui nt e s s e nt i a l s hot gun pl e a di ng’ of the type tha tthe E l e ve nth C i r c ui tC ourtof A pp ea l s has re peat edl y c on dem ned. ” A bel e f ol l ow ed the order of the di stri ctcourt to r e f ile h is c o m p la in t. In hi s S ec on d A m ended C om pl ai nt , A bel e a l l eged: (1) R on A l i ff dem ol i shed one of A be l e ’ s pr ope rt i e s “ w i thouta nyl e ga l not i c e a s r e qui r e d byF e de r a l a nd S t a t e s S t a tut e s ” a nd “ the ‘ a ge nc y ’ f a i l e d t o gr a ntthe ba r e e s s e nt i a l s of l a w ” a nd v io la te d p r o te c tio n s g u a r a n te e d b yth e F lo r id aa n dF e d e r a l C o n s titu tio n s w h e n it f a i l e d t o s e e k i nj unc t i ve r e l i e f a s r e qui r e d bys t a t e l a w ; ( 2) A l i f f w r ongl yde ni e d, unde rs t a t e l a w , abui l di ng pe rm i tf orapr ope rtyA be l e s ol d; a nd ( 3) R on A l i f f a nd G rantT ol bertvi ol at ed vari ou s s t at e l aw s and the R IC O A ctw hen, w i tho utprop er n o tic e o rc o u rt o r d e r s , th e yo r d e r e dth e r e m o v a l o f th e e le c tr ic m e te rf

r o m am o b ile h o m e o n p r o p e rtyz o n e d f o ra g r ic u ltu r a l u s e . T he de f e nda nt s m ove d t o di s m i s s the S e c ond A m e nde d C om pl a i ntf or4

f a i l u r e t o s t a t e ac l a i m u p o n w h i c h r e l i e f c a n b e g r a n t e d . Se e Fe d . R. Ci v . P. 12( b) ( 6) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtc onc l ude d tha tA be l e f a i l e d t o s t a t e ac l a i m unde rthe R IC O A ctand d i sm i ss ed thatcl ai m w i th p re j ud i ce . T he di stri ctcourtdet erm i ned th a tAb e l e ’ s r e m a i n i n g a l l e g a t i o n s s o u g h t“ r e l i e f s o l e l yp u r s u a n tt o F l o r i d al a w” and d i sm i ss ed them w i tho utprej ud i ce af t erdecl i ni ng t o exerci se i t s s up pl em ent al ju r is d ic tio n . A b e le a g a in s e e k s o u rr e v ie w . I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW

“ W e r e vi e w the di s m i s s a l of ac om pl a i ntf

orf a i l ur e t o s t a t e ac l a i m de novo, c o n s tru in g a ll a lle g a tio n s in th e c o m p la in t a s tru e a n din th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to the pl a i nt i f

f . ” S ha nds T e a c hi ng H os p. a nd C l i ni c s , I nc . v. B e e c h S tr e e tC orp. , 208 F . 3 d 1 3 0 8 , 1 3 1 0 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) (i n t ern al ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ). “ A m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss i s onl y grant ed w hen the m ov antdem on stra t es ‘ beyond do ub tthatthe pl ai nt i ff can prov e no setof fa ct s i n sup po rtof hi s c l ai m w hi ch w ou l d ent i t l e hi m t o rel i ef . ’ ” H a rpe rv. B l oc kbus t e rE nt e rt a i nm e ntC orp. , 139 F . 3d 1385, 1387 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ( q u o tin g C o n le yv . G ib s o n , 3 5 5 U .S . 4 1 , 4 5 - 4 6 , 7 8 S . C t. 9 9 , 1 0 2 ( 1 9 5 7 ) ) . I I I . DI S CUS S I ON B e c au s e A b e le ap p e a ls p r o s e , w e “c o n s tru e [ h is ] c o m p la in t m o r e lib e r a lly tha n [ w e ] w oul d f

orm a l pl e a di ngs dr a f

t e d byl a w y e r s . ” P ow e l l v. L e nnon, 914 F . 2d 1459, 1463 ( 11th C i r . 1990) . W e a l s o c ons true l i be r a l l yhi s a r gum e nt s on5

appe a l . S e e M c B r i de v. S ha rpe , 25 F . 3d 962, 971 ( 11th C i r . 1994) ; S a l e e m v. E vans, 86 6 F . 2d 13 13 , 13 15 & n. 2 (11 th C i r. 19 89 ). A l tho ug h A bel e’ s app ea l br i e f s a r e a l m os ti nde c i phe r abl e , w e c ons true the m t o i nc l ude tw o a r gum e nt s : ( 1) he s t a t e d ac l a i m upon w hi c h r e l i e f c oul d be gr a nt e d unde rthe R I C O A c t ; a nd ( 2) h e s o u g h t r e lie f

u n d e rf e d e r a l la w a n ds ta te dac la im o f v io la tio n o f

h is const i tut i on al ri gh tt o d ue process . A bel e f ai l s t o chal l enge on appeal the di sm i ss al w i thoutpr e

j udi c e of hi s c l a i m s ba s e d on s t a t e l a w , a nd w e de c l i ne t o a ddr e s s the i s s ue of “ obl i ga t i on of

c ontr a c t ” tha tA be l e r a i s e s i n hi s r e pl ybr i e f be c aus e he fa i l ed t o rai se i ti n C ou ntII of hi s S ec on d A m ended C om pl ai ntand i n h i s I ni t i al B ri ef. S ee H art sfi el d v . L em ack s, 5 0 F . 3 d9 5 0 , 9 5 3 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 5 ); A l l st at e In s. C o. v. S w ann, 27 F . 3d 15 39 , 15 42 (11th C i r. 19 94 ). W e f i rs tdi sc uss w hether A b el e st at ed a cl ai m u n d er th e R IC O A ct , an dth en ad d ress th e i ssu e o f d u e p ro cess o f la w . A . A b e le Fa ile d to S ta te a C la im U

n de rth e R IC O A c t. W e ha ve e xpl a i ne d tha tac i vi l c l a i m unde rthe R I C O A c tr e qui r e s pr oof of f oure l e m e nt s : “ ( 1) c onduc t( 2) of a n e nt e rpr i s e ( 3) thr ough apa tt e rn ( 4) of r a c ke t e e r i ng a c t i vi ty . ” L a ngf or d v. R i t e A i d of

A l aba m a , I nc . , 231 F . 3d 1308, 1 3 1 1 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) . “ [ A] p a tt e rn o f r a c k e t e e r i n g a c t i v i ty. . . [ i s ] d e f i n e da s two

‘ p red i cat e act s’ o f rack et eeri n g act i v i ty w i th i n a 1 0 year p eri o d . T h e p h rase6

‘ ra cket ee ri ng ac t i vi ty’ i s def i ned as i ncl ud i ng any a ctw hi ch i s i nd i ct abl e und era l engthy l i stof cr i m i nal offe nses . . . . ” I d. at13 11 -12 (i nt ernal ci t at i on om i tt ed); se e 18 U . S . C . § 1 96 1(5). A be l e f a i l e d t o s t a t e ac l a i m unde rthe R I C O A c tbe c aus e he f a i l e d t o a l l e ge the de f e nda nt s c om m i tt e d pr e di c a t e a c t s tha tw oul d c ons t i tut e apa tt e rn of r a c k e te e r in g a c tiv ityu n d e rs e c tio n 1 9 6 1 ( 1 ) . S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 6 1 ( 1 ) , ( 5 ) . A b e le a lle g e d th e d e f

e n d a n ts “w a n to n lya n dm a lic io u s lyd e s tr o y e d ” s e v e r a l o f h is p r o p e rt i e s o v e ra1 2 - y e a rp e r i o d a n dw r o n g l yr e mo v e daw a t e rme t e rf r o m a m o b ile h o m e h e o w n e d , b u t th e s e a c tio n s a r e n o t in c lu d e da s p r e d ic a te a c ts in s e c t i on 1961( 1) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtc orr e c t l ydi s m i s s e d the c l a i m A be l e br ought u n d e rth e R I C O A c t.

B . A b ele S ta ted

a C la i m o

f D en i a l o f D u e P ro cess. W e pre vi ou sl y c on cl ud ed thatA bel e’ s ori gi nal com pl ai ntra i se d the fe dera l que s t i ons “ w he the rthe de f e nda nt s vi ol a t e d A be l e ’ s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtt o due p r o c e s s o f

la w . . . [ a n d ] th e T a k in g s C lau s e o f th e F if th a n dF o u rte e n th A m endm ent s t o the C on st i tut i on . ” A bel e, N o. 04 -148 85 . T he S ec on d A m ended C om pl a i ntdi d nota l l e ge at a ki ng, but , c ons true d l i be r a l l y , the c om pl a i ntr a i s e d a f e d e r a l q u e s tio n o f

d u e p r o c e s s w h e n it a lle g e dth a t A lif f e n te r e dA b e le ’s p r o p e rty

“ a nd w i thouta nyl e ga l not i c e a s r e qui r e d byF e de r a l a nd S t a t e S t a tut e s a nd the7

r e l e va ntC a s e L a w ( s ) , he c om m e nc e d t o de m ol i s h the r e s . ” A be l e a l s o a l l e ge d he w as deni ed the “ bare es se nt i al s of l aw ” a s guarant ee d “ un der S t at e and F eder al C o n stitu ti o n (s ).” A lth o u g h itw as u n d en iab ly d ifficu ltto u n ra v el A b ele’s c o m p la in t, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr o n e o u s lyig n o r e dth is f e d e r a l q u e s tio n . “T h e D u e P r o c e s s C lau s e o f th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t r e q u ir e s th a t a pr i va t e c i t i z e n be gi ve n not i c e a nd a n opportuni tyt o be he a r d be f or e agove rnm e nt of f i c i a l s e i z e s hi s orhe rpr ope rty . ” Q ui k C a s h P a w n & J e w e l ry , I nc . v. S he r i f f of B ro w ar d C o u n ty, 2 7 9 F .3 d 1 3 1 6 , 1 3 2 2 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). C o u n t I o f A b ele’s c om pl a i nt , c ons true d l i be r a l l y , s t a t e s ac l a i m tha tthe de f e nda nt s de s tr oy e d one or m or e of A be l e ’ s pr ope rt i e s orhom e s w i thoutnot i c e orahe a r i ng— i . e . , tha tthe d e f e n d a n ts v io la te d A b e le ’s r ig h t to p r o c e d u r a l d u e p r o c e s s . T h e m o tio n to d is m is s th is c la im s h o u ldh a v e b e e n d e n ie d . I V . CONCL US I ON W e a f f i rm th e d i s mi s s a l w i th p r e j u d i c e o f A b e l e ’ s c l a i m u n d e rth e RI CO A c t. B e c au s e w e c o n c lu d e A b e le s ta te dac la im th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts v io la te dh is ri gh tt o d ue process , w e r ever se the di sm i ss al of thatcl ai m and rem and for further p r o c e e d in g s . A F F IR M E D i n p art an d R E V E R S E D an d R E M A N D E D i n p art.