FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT DE CEMB ER 23, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NOT P UB L I S H] I N TH E U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 12686 N on - A r gu m e n t C al e n d ar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 3 4 4 - CV - T- 2 4 - M SS M E L A B E L E , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s H E RN A N D O C O U N T Y , ap o litic a l s u b d iv is io n o f F lo r id a , M I C H A E L A N Z A L O N E , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s ,

________________________ A p p ealfr om th e U n i te d S tate s D i st ri ct C ou rt f o r t he M i ddl e D i s t r i c t o f Fl o r i da

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 23, 2005) B efo re D U B IN A , B L A C K a n d H U L L , C i rcu i t J u d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

M e l A be l e appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ' s or de r s ( 1) de ny i ng A be l e ' s m ot i on f or de f aul tj udgm e nta ga i ns tde f e nda ntH e rna ndo C ounty , F l or i da , ( 2) di s m i s s i ng w i thoutpr e

j udi c e the c om pl a i nta s t o de f e nda nt s R on A l i f

f a nd G r a ntT ol be r tf

or f a i l ur e t o t i m e l y pe r f

e c ts e rvi c e of

pr oc e s s , ( 3) c om pe l l i ng m e di a t i on a nd de ny i ng A be l e ' s r e que s tf

oranon- l a w y e rm e di a t or , a nd ( 4) gr a nt i ng de f e nda ntH e rna ndo Co u n ty ' s mo t i o n f

o rs u mma ry j u d g me n ti n A b e l e ’ s c i v i l a c t i o n a l l e g i n g c l a i ms un der R IC O , 18 U . S . C . § 1 96 4(c) , the C on tra ct s C l ause of the U ni t ed S t at es C ons t i tut i on, a nd of

c i vi l r i ght s de pr i va t i ons , 42 U . S . C . § 1983. W e a f f i rm the d is tr ic t c o u r t. I . DI S CUS S I ON A . Mot i ons f

orD e f aul t J udgm e nt A b e le a s s e r ts th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n s f o rd e f au lt ju d g m e n t a g a in s t H e rn a n d o C o u n ty , c o n te n d in g H e rn a n d o C o u n ty f a ile d to tim e ly f ile a n a n s w e rto th e c o m p la in t. “W e r e v ie w th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n f

o rd e f au lt j u d g m en tfo r ab u se o f d i scret i o n . " Mi tchel l v. B row n & W

i l l i am son T

ob acco C or p. , 2 9 4 F. 3 d 1 3 0 9 , 1 3 1 6 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) . " W h e n ap a r ty a g a i n s tw h o m a j ud gm entfor a ff

i rm at i ve re l i ef

i s s ou gh thas f

ai l ed t o p l ea d o r otherw i se defe nd as prov i ded b y these rul es and thatfa cti s m ade t o app ea r by a ff i davi tor otherw i se , the c l e rk s ha l l e nt e rthe pa r ty ' s de f aul t . " F e d. R . C i v. P . 55( a ) . " E ntry of j udgm e ntAb e lefi le d his c omp laint on F ebr ua ry 25 , 2 00 4. Servic eof

proc e ss w a s e xecute d a s to 1 Her nando County

on Februar

y 27, 2004, and Hernando County ’s answer wa s due on March 18, 2004. Her

nando County

filed an a nswer on A

pril 2, 2004. 3 by de f aul ti s adr a s t i c r e m e dy w hi c h s houl d be us e d onl y i n e xtr e m e s i tua t i ons " or

“ ex cep t i o n al ci rcu m st an ces. " Mitc h e ll , 294 F . 3d a t1316–17. W e ha ve he l d

" e xc e pt i ona l c i r c um s t a nc e s " j us t i f y i ng e ntry of

de f aul tj udgm e ntw e r e notpr e s e nt w here (1) the appel l antfa i l ed t o sho w the del ayfor f ai l ure t o p rose cut e pre

j ud i ce d h i m i n a n y w a y , ( 2 ) th e d e f e n d a n t s a n s w e r e d th e c o mp l a i n tw i th i n as h o r tt i me a f te rit w a s d u e , a n d ( 3 ) th e c la im s a g a in s t m o s t o f th e d e f e n d a n ts w e r e f

a c ia lly in v a lid . W

ah l v. McI ve r , 77 3 F . 2d 11 69 , 11 74 (11th C i r. 19 85 ). H e rn a n d o C o u n ty c o n c e d e s it d id n o t tim e ly f ile a n a n s w e rto A b e le 's c o m p la in t. H o w e v e r , e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s ju s tif y in g e n try o f

ad e f au lt ju d g m e n t a r e n o t p r e s e n t. F ir s t, A b e le f a ile d to s h o w th e d e la y f o rf a ilu r e to pr os e c ut e pr e

j udi c e d hi m i n a ny w a y . N e xt , H e rna ndo C ounty a ns w e r e d the c o m p la in t w ith in as h o r t tim e a f te rit w a s d u e . L a s t, a s d is c u s s e d b e lo w , A b e le 's

1 fe dera l cl ai m s a gai nstH ernand o C ou nty a re w i tho utm er i t . B ec ause exce pt i on al ci rc um st ance s j ust i fy i ng entryof a def aul tj ud gm entar e notpres ent , the di stri ct c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g A b e le 's m o tio n s f o rd e f au lt ju d g m e n t.4

B . D ism issa l

o f C o m p la i n t a s to A l i f f a n d T o lb ert N ext , A bel e c on t ends the di stri ctcourterre d i n d i sm i ss i ng w i tho utprej ud i ce A be l e ' s c om pl a i nta s t o A l i f f a nd T ol be r tba s e d on A be l e ’ s f a i l ur e t o t i m e l y s e rve p ro cess o n th o se d efen d an t s. A b el e co n t en d s th e cl erk o f th e co u rtw ast ed 1 0 d ays i ssu i n g th e su m m o n ses, l eav i n g o n l y 2 4 h o u rs t o effect service. A b el e al so c ont e nds A l i f

f a nd T ol be r tpurpos e l y m a de the m s e l ve s una va i l abl e f ors e rvi c e of p ro cess. W e r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u r t's d is m is s a l o f ac o m p la in t f

o rf a ilu r e to tim e ly s e rv e th e s u m m o n s a n d c o m p la in t f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . B r o w n v . N ic h o ls , 8 F . 3d 770, 775 ( 11th C i r . 1993) ( hol di ng s uc h i n the c ont e xtof f orm e rF e d. R . C i v. P . 4 (j ), w h i ch w as rep l aced b y cu rren tR u l e 4 (m )). R u l e 4 (m ) p ro v i d es as fo l l o w s: I f s e rvi c e of

the s um m ons a nd c om pl a i nti s notm a de upon a d e f e n d a n t w ith in 1 2 0 d a y s a f te rth e f ilin g o f th e c o m p la in t, th e c o u r t, u p o n m o tio n o ro n its o w n in itia tiv e a f te rn o tic e to th e p la in tif f , s h a ll di sm i ss the ac t i on w i tho utprej ud i ce as t o thatdefe nd antor di re ctthat s e rvi c e be e f

f e c t e d w i thi n as pe c i f

i e d t i m e ; pr ovi de d tha ti f the pl a i nt i f f s how s good c aus e f

orthe f a i l ur e , the c our ts ha l l e xt e nd the t i m e f ors e rvi c e f

ora n appr opr i a t e pe r i od.

" [ C ] our t s ha ve f

ound ‘ good c aus e ' unde rR ul e 4[ m ] onl yw he n s om e out s i de fa ct or such as re l i ance on faul ty a dv i ce , ra ther than i nadv ert ence or negl i gence, p rev en t ed serv i ce. " P r is c o v . Fr ank , 929 F . 2d 603, 604 ( 11th C i r . 1991) ( d is c u s s in g " g o o d c au s e " u n d e rf o rm e rR u le 4 (

j) ) , supers eded in p a rt by r u le as5

stat ed in H

orenkam p v. V an W i nkle andC om

pa ny, Inc. , 4 0 2 F .3 d 1 1 2 9 , 1 1 3 2 n .2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . R e c e n tly , w e h e ld c u rr e n t R u le 4 ( m ) , a s a m e n d e d in 1 9 9 3 , g r a n ts di s c r e t i on t o the di s tr i c tc our tt o e xt e nd the t i m e f ors e rvi c e of

pr oc e s s e ve n i n the ab sen ce o f a sh o w i n g o f "g o o d cau se. " Ho r e n ka mp , 40 2 F . 3d at11 32 (11th C i r. 2005) . I n Ho r e n ka mp , w e id e n tif ie d a s e x a m p le s o f

w h e n r e lie f

m a y b e ju s tif

ie d in the abs e nc e of

good c aus e a s " i f

the appl i c abl e s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons w oul d ba rthe r e f ile d a c tio n , o rif

th e d e f e n d a n t is e v a d in g s e rv ic e o rc o n c e a ls ad e f e c t in att em p t ed serv i ce. " I

d. (c i t i ng F ed. R . C i v. P . 4(m ), A dv i soryC om m i tt ee N ot e, 1 9 9 3 A m e n d m e n ts ) . H e r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d is m is s in g A b e le 's c o m p la in t w ith o u t p r e

ju d ic e a s to A lif

f a n d T o lb e r t f

o rf a ilu r e to c o m p ly w ith R u le 4( m ) . O n J ul y 9, 2004, the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d a n or a l m ot i on by A be l e t o ha ve a d d itio n a l tim e to s e rv e th e s e d e f e n d a n ts . P u r s u a n t to th e o r d e r , A b e le h a d u n til J ul y 22, 2004 t o pe r f

e c ts e rvi c e on A l i f

f a nd T ol be r t( at ot a l of

148 da y s f

r om the da t e A be l e f

i l e d the or i gi na l c om pl a i nt ) . O n J ul y 23, 2004, A be l e m ove d f or another e xt ensi on of t i m e t o p er fe ctse rvi ce , concedi ng he had n otperf ec t ed se rvi ce by Jul y 22, 20 04 . T here fore , A bel e f ai l ed t o com pl y w i th the t i m e r equi re m ent s s et f o r th in R u le 4 ( m ) , a s e x te n d e d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. See F ed. R . C i v. P . 4(m ).6

A be l e f a i l e d t o s how good c aus e f orthe de l a y . A be l e a dva nc e d a s ar e a s on f o rth e d e la y th e f

a c t th e c le rko f

th e c o u r t f

a ile d to s ta m p th e s u m m o n s e s u n til A be l e c a l l e d he r10 da y s a f t e rhe m a i l e d the s um m ons e s t o the c l e rk, a nd the sher i ff ' s off i ce w as un abl e t o eff

ec tpers on al se rvi ce on A l i ff and T ol bertbetw ee n J ul y 21, 2004 ( the da t e the of f i c e r e c e i ve d the s um m ons e s f r om A be l e ) a nd J ul y 22, 2004 ( the da t e by w hi c h A be l e w a s t o ha ve s e rve d pr oc e s s on A l i f f a nd T ol bert ). H ow ever , A bel e a l so concedes he di d n otm ai l the ori gi nal sum m on se s for A l i ff and T ol bertt o the cl erk o f the courtun t i l Jul y 9, 20 04 , near l y s even m onths a f

t e rthe c om pl a i ntw a s f

i l e d. T he de l a y i n s e rvi c e of pr oc e s s , the n, i s not th e f au lt o f s o m e o u ts id e f

a c to r , s u c h a s r e lia n c e o f f au lty a d v ic e ; r a th e r , a s A b e le w a s p r o v id e d 1 4 8 d a y s to p e r f e c t s e rv ic e , th e r e a s o n s o u n d s m o r e in n e g lig e n c e . F ur the rm or e , a l though the di s tr i c tc our tha d di s c r e t i on t o gr a ntA be l e as e c ond e x te n s io n o f

tim e to c o m p le te s e rv ic e , e v e n in th e ab s e n c e o f " g o o d c au s e ," A b e le f a i l e d t o c i t e t o e vi de nc e t o s uppor thi s a r gum e nttha tA l i f f orT ol be r tw e r e e va di ng s e rv ic e . See Ho r e n ka mp , 402 F . 3d a t1132. C . Me di at i on N e xt , A be l e a s s e r t s the di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n c om pe l l i ng m e di a t i on a nd de ny i ng A be l e ' s r e que s tf oranon- l a w y e rm e di a t or . A be l e c ont e nds he kne w the7

m edi at i on w ou l d b e a n "ac tof fut i l i ty" and the m edi at i on re sul t ed i n an add i t i on al $ 7 5 0 i n ex p en ses. W e r e v ie w ad is tr ic t c o u r t's o r d e ro v e rru lin g ap a r ty 's o b je c tio n s to m e d ia tio n f

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . See B ouc hard T r ans p. C o. v . Fla. D e

pt . of E n v tl. P r o t. , 91 F . 3d 1445, 1448 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ( hol di ng a n or de rof m e di a t i on i nv ol ves the di stri ctcourt ' s s up ervi si on of l i t i gat i on ). A fe dera l di stri ctcourtm ay t ake app ropri at e a ct i on w i th res pectt o sett l em entand the use of s peci al procedures t o a s s i s ti n r e s o l v i n g ad i s p u t e w h e n au th o r i z e d b y s t a tu t e o rl o c a l ru l e . Fe d . R. C iv . P . 1 6 ( c ) ( 9 ) . T h e lo c a l ru le s f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f F lo r id ap r o v id e th a t, u p o n o r d e rb y th e p r e s id in g ju d g e , a n y c iv il a c tio n m a y b e r e f e rr e d b y th e c o u r t to a m edi at i on confere nce, w i th cert ai n except i on s thatdo no tappl y her e. M . D . F l a. R . 9. 03 (a ). B e c au s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s au th o r iz e d b y lo c a l ru le to r e f e rth is c iv il a c tio n to m e d ia tio n , th e c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in c o m p e llin g m e d ia tio n . M or e ove r , the r e c or d r e f l e c t s the c os t s of

the c our t - appoi nt e d m e di a t or , t o be s h a r e d e q u a lly b y th e p a r tie s , w e r e n o t s h o w n b y A b e le to b e u n r e a s o n ab le . T here fore , the courtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng A bel e' s r equestfor a no n-l aw ye r m edi at or.8

D . Sum m ar

y J udgm e nt L a s t, A b e le c o n te n d s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in g r a n tin g H e rn a n d o C o u n ty 's m ot i on f ors um m a ry j udgm e nta s t o A be l e ' s f e de r a l c l a i m s , c ont e ndi ng w i thout supp ortthere ar e m at er i al i ss ues of f ac tw i th res pectt o eac h o f hi s c l ai m s. A s a n i ni t i a l m a tt e r , w e c onc l ude A be l e i s appe a l i ng onl y the di s tr i c tc our t ' s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e nta s t o A be l e ' s f e de r a l c l a i m s . T he di s tr i c tc our tc ons true d the c om pl a i nta s a l l e gi ng f

e de r a l c l a i m s unde rR I C O , the C ontr a c t s C l aus e , a nd the D ue P roce ss C l ause . T he di stri ctcourtfurther c on strued the du e proces s c l ai m s a s (1) asubst ant i ve du e proces s c hal l enge t o the coun ty bui l di ng codes, (2) a s ubs t a nt i ve due pr oc e s s c l a i m of i nt e r f e r e nc e w i th A be l e ' s pr ope r ty r i ght s , a nd ( 3 ) ap r o c e d u r a l d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m o f i n t e r f e r e n c e wi th Ab e l e ' s p r o p e r ty r i g h t s . As A bel e does notchal l enge these char ac t er i za t i on s of hi s c l ai m s on app ea l , any other f e d e r a l c la im s a r e d e e m e d ab a n d o n e d . See L a m b ri x v. S i n g leta ry , 72 F . 3d 1500, 1506 n. 11 ( 11th C i r . 1996) . M or e ove r , A be l e ' s appe l l a t e br i e f s do notc ha l l e nge the di stri ctcourt ' s det erm i nat i on thatA bel e' s s ol e c l ai m agai nstM i chae l A nzal on e, an a m e d d e f

e n d a n t, c o n s is te d o f

as ta te la w b r e a c h o f

c o n tr a c t c la im o rth e c o u r t's d e c is io n n o t 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 ra n y s ta te la w c la im s . T he r e f or e , a ny c l a i m a ga i ns tA nz a l one a nd a ny c ha l l e nge t o the c our t ' s de c i s i on w ith r e s p e c t to th e s ta te la w c la im s a r e a ls o d e e m e dab a n d o n e d . See i d.9

“W e r e v ie w ad is tr ic t c o u r t's g r a n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t de no vo , vi e w i ng the evi dence i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the party opp osi ng the m ot i on . ” P e r r i no v . Southe rn B e l l

T e l . & T e l . C o. , 2 0 9 F .3 d 1 3 0 9 , 1 3 1 4

– 1 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . S u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m u s t b e g r a n te d " if th e p le a d in g s , d e p o s itio n s , a n s w e r s to i nt e rr oga t or i e s , a nd a dm i s s i ons on f i l e , t oge the rw i th the a f

f i da vi t s , i f

a ny , s how th a t th e r e is n o g e n u in e is s u e a s to a n y m a te r ia l f a c t a n d th a t th e m o v in g p a r ty is ent i t l ed t o a j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw . " F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 (c ). 1 . RICO "T he four el em ent s of c i vi l R IC O l i abi l i ty a re (1) c on du ct(2) of a n en t erp ri se (3 ) th ro u g h a p att ern (4 ) o f rack et eeri n g act i v i ty. " L a n g fo rd v . R ite A id of A la. , Inc. , 23 1 F . 3d 13 08 , 13 11 (11th C i r. 20 00 ). C on gres s has defi ned "rack et eeri n g act i v i ty" as i n cl u d i n g an y actw h i ch i s i n d i ct ab l e u n d er a l en g th y l i st of cr i m i nal offe nses . 18 U . S . C . 19 61 (1). A b e le h a s f

a ile d to id e n tif

y a n y c o n d u c t c o n s titu tin g r a c k e te e r in g a c tiv ity . N o rh a s A b e le o th e rw is e a d d u c e d a n y e v id e n c e s h o w in g H e rn a n d o C o u n ty e n g a g e d in ap a tte rn o f

r a c k e te e r in g . T h e r e f

o r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin g r a n t i n g s u mma ry j u d g me n tt o H e rn a n d o Co u n ty a s t o A b e l e ' s RI CO c l a i m.10

2 . C o n tra ct

s C la u se A r tic le I , § 1 0 o f

th e C o n s titu tio n p r o v id e s : " N o S ta te s h a ll . . . p a s s a n y . . . L a w i m pa i r i ng the O bl i ga t i on of C ontr a c t s . " W he n a na l y z i ng ac l a i m unde rthe C on tra ct s C l ause , court s " fi rs tas k w hether the change i n st at e l aw has opera t ed as a su b st an t i al i m p ai rm en to f a co n tractu al rel at i o n sh i p . " G ener alMot ors C orp. v. R o m e in , 1 1 2 S . C t. 1 1 0 5 , 1 1 0 9 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ( q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . " T h is i nq ui ryhas three com po nent s: w hether there i s acontra ctual re l at i on shi p, w hether ac ha nge i n l a w i m pa i r s tha tc ontr a c tua l r e l a t i ons hi p, a nd w he the rthe i m pa i rm e nt i s su b st an t i al . " I

d. T hus , the c ontr a c ta ti s s ue m us tbe i n e xi s t e nc e pr i ort o the p a s s i n g o f

th e c h a l l e n g e d l a w. A bel e has no taddu ce d any evi dence s ho w i ng H ernand o C ou nty, or the st at e, pass ed any l aw i nt er fe ri ng w i th a contra ctA bel e had i n exi st ence before the l aw p a s s e d . A s s u c h , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin g r a n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to H e rn a n d o Co u n ty a s t o A b e l e ' s Co n tr a c t s Cl au s e c l a i m. 3 . D u e P ro cess T h e D u e P r o c e s s C lau s e o f th e F o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n t p r o v id e s " n o rs h a ll a ny S t a t e de pr i ve a ny pe r s on of l i f e , l i be r ty , orpr ope r ty , w i thoutdue pr oc e s s of l aw . " U . S . C on st . am end. X IV , § 1 . W e have expl ai ned the S up re m e C ou rthas i nt erpret ed thi s c l ause t o p rovi de for tw o d i ff er entki nd s of c on st i tut i on alWhen addre ssing a substantive due proc ess claim, it is crucial to note the distinction 2 between “legislative” ac ts and “non-le g islative” or “ executive” acts. McKinney , 20 F.3d at 1557 n. 9. “ Exe cutivea c ts”c ha rac teri sti c ally

a pp ly to a limite d numb er o f p ers on s ( and of ten toonly one per son) and ty

pically arise f rom the ministerial or administrative activities of members of the executive bra

nch. Id. L eg islative acts, on the other hand, g enerally

apply to a larg er se gment of society ; laws and broad-ra ng ing ex ecutive regulations are themost common ex amples. Id. The substantive dueproce ss analysis differs dependingon which ty pe of act is involved. Id. Thus, Abele’ s challeng e to the building c ode ordina nces themselves constitutes a challeng e to a leg islative act, while Abele’ s challeng e to the administrative a pplication of the buildingcode ordin anc e s ( e.g. , razingthehous e , re movinge le c tric al meters , etc .) c on stitute s a c halleng eto e xecutiveor

no n- le g isl ativ ea c ts. 11 p r o te c tio n : s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p r o c e s s a n d p r o c e d u r a l d u e p r o c e s s . McKin n e y v . P a te , 20 F . 3d 15 50 , 15 55 (11th C i r. 19 94 ).

a . Su bstan t i ve D ue P rocess – L egislat i ve A ct B e c au s e th e b u ild in g c o d e o r d in a n c e s c h a lle n g e d b y A b e le n e ith e rta r g e t a prot ec t ed cl as s nor i m pl i ca t e f un dam ent al ri gh t s, w e app l y the hi gh l y def er ent i al r a tio n a l b a s is te s t to th is s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p r o c e s s c h a lle n g e to ale g is la tiv e a c t. See 2 Sc hw ar zv . Kogan , 132 F . 3d 1387, 1390 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ( hol di ng s ubs t a nt i ve due pr oc e s s c ha l l e nge s noti m pl i c a t i ng f unda m e nt a l r i ght s a r e r e vi e w e d unde rthe hi gh l y def

er ent i al ra t i on al basi s s t andard). "I n o rdert o survi ve thi s m i ni m al s c ru tin y , th e c h a lle n g e d p r o v is io n n e e d o n ly b e r a tio n a lly r e la te d to ale g itim a te g o v ern m en tp u rp o se. " I d. at1 3 9 0

– 9 1 . U n d er rat i o n al b asi s rev i ew , w e fi rst id e n tif y " ale g itim a te g o v e rn m e n t p u rp o s e . . . w h ic h th e e n a c tin g g o v e rn m e n t b o d y c o u ld

h av e b een p u rsu i n g . " B an nu m , Inc. v. C i t y of Fort L au derdal e, Flor i da , 157 F . 3d 819, 822 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons om i tt e d)12

( e m pha s i s i n or i gi na l ) . S e c ond, w e de t e rm i ne " w he the rar a t i ona l ba s i s e xi s t s f or the e na c t i ng gove rnm e ntbody t o be l i e ve the l e gi s l a t i on w oul d f ur the rthe h yp o th esi zed p u rp o se. " I d. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n gr a nt i ng s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o H e rna ndo C ounty a s t o A be l e ' s s ubs t a nt i ve due pr oc e s s c ha l l e nge t o the bui l di ng c ode or di na nc e s e na c t e d by H e rna ndo C ounty . I n e na c t i ng the bui l di ng c ode or di na nc e s , H e rna ndo C ounty c oul d ha ve be e n pur s ui ng the l e gi t i m a t e gove rnm e nt purpos e a dva nc e d by H e rna ndo C ounty , pr ovi di ng f orthe s a f e ty a nd he a l th of

the r e s id e n ts o f

H e rn a n d o C o u n ty . See i d. a t 8 2 3 ( h o ld in g p u b lic s a f e ty is ale g itim a te go al for the pu rpose of r at i on al basi s r evi ew ). A s the bu i l di ng code ordi nances pr ovi de s t a nda r ds t o e ns ur e the s truc tur a l , e l e c tr i c a l , a nd pl um bi ng i nt e gr i ty of r e s i de nt i a l s truc tur e s , ar a t i ona l ba s i s e xi s t s f orH e rna ndo C ounty t o be l i e ve the ordi nances further thi s l egi t i m at e gov ernm entpu rpose.

b . Su b s ta n tiv e D u e P r o c e s s –N o n - leg is la tiv e A c ts I n a d d r e s s in g as u b s ta n tiv e d u e p r o c e s s c h a lle n g e to an o n - le g is la tiv e a c t, su ch as th e al l eg ed i n t erferen ce b y H ern an d o C o u n ty w i th A b el e' s p ro p erty ri g h t s, ap la in tif f m u s t id e n tif

y ar ig h t th a t is " f

u n d a m e n ta l," th a t is , ar ig h t th a t is "i m p l i ci ti n th e co n cep to f o rd ered l i b erty. " McKi nn ey , 20 F . 3d a t1556 ( quot a t i ons om i tt ed). "[ A ] re as i n w hi ch subst ant i ve ri gh t s are cr eat ed on l y by s t at e l aw . . . ar eTo the extent Abele’s c omplaint could be construe d as alleging a substantive due 3 proce ss claim concerninga violation of the Takings Clause , the district court failed to construe the complaint as alleg ing such, and Abe le fails to appeal this characterization. Theref ore, a ny such claim is deemed aba ndoned. See Lam brix , 72 F.3d at 1506 n.11.

13 no tsubj ec tt o sub st ant i ve du e proces s prot ec t i on un der the D ue P roce ss C l ause [a s appl i ed t o n on -l egi sl at i ve ac t s, ] because s ub st ant i ve du e proces s r i gh t s are cr ea t ed o n l y b y th e C o n st i tu t i o n . " I d. ( q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . P r o p e r ty r ig h ts a r e s ta te c o m m o n la w r ig h ts a n d a r e n o t e q u iv a le n t to f u n d a m e n ta l r ig h ts . D eKa lb S to n e , I n c . v . C o u n ty o

f D eKa lb , G e o r

g ia , 1 0 6 F .3 d 9 5 6 , 9 5 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . N o n -l eg i sl at i v e d ep ri v at i o n s o f st at e-created p ro p erty ri g h t s, i n cl u d i n g l an d -u se ri gh t s, "c anno tsupp orta s ub st ant i ve du e proces s c l ai m , no teven i f the pl ai nt i ff al l eg es th atth e g o v ern m en tact ed arb i trar[i l ] y an d i rrat i o n al l y. " G r e e nbr i ar V illa g e , L .L .C . v . Mo u n ta in B r o o k , C ity , 34 5 F . 3d 12 58 , 12 63 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). A be l e f a i l s t o s t a t e as ubs t a nt i ve due pr oc e s s c l a i m w i th r e s pe c tt o H e rna ndo C ounty ' s a l l e ge d i nt e r f

e r e nc e w i th hi s pr ope r ty r i ght s , i nc l udi ng r e m ovi ng e l e c tr i c a l m e t e r s , de s tr oy i ng aboa t , f a i l i ng t o i s s ue a n oc c upa nc y pe rm i t , a nd r a z in g as tru c tu r e . T h e p r o p e r ty r ig h ts a t is s u e a r e s ta te - c r e a te d r ig h ts . N on- l e gi s l a t i ve de pr i va t i ons of s uc h r i ght s c a nnots uppor tas ubs t a nt i ve due proces s c l ai m . T here fore , the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n g ra nt i ng sum m ary

3 j u d g me n tt o H e rn a n d o Co u n ty a s t o th i s c l a i m.14 c . P ro cedu ra l

D u e P ro cess T h e D u e P r o c e s s C lau s e o f th e F o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n t r e q u ir e s ap r iv a te ci t i ze n b e gi ven n ot i ce and o pp ortun i ty t o b e hea rd before ago vernm ent al offi ci al s e iz e s h is p r o p e r ty . Q u i k C a sh P a w n & Jew elry, In c. v. Sh eri f f o f B ro w a rd C o u n ty , 2 7 9 F . 3 d 1 3 1 6 , 1 3 2 2 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) . I n a n a l y z i n g s u c h ac l a i m , we exam i ne w hether ( 1) the pl ai nt i ff had a prop erty i nt er es tof w hi ch he w as depri ved by st at e a ct i on , and (2) the pl ai nt i ff re ce i ved suffi ci entproces s r egar di ng that d e p r iv a tio n . R os s v . C lay ton C ount y, G a. , 1 7 3 F .3 d 1 3 0 5 , 1 3 0 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . W i th r e s pe c tt o the s e c ond pr ong of thi s e xa m i na t i on, w e m us te xa m i ne the adequacy of a l l re m edi es avai l abl e t o the pl ai nt i ff i n o rdert o asc ert ai n w hether th e s e r e m e d ie s a r e s o in a d e q u a te a s to v io la te c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d la w . B ussi ng erv. C i t y of N e w Smy rna B e ac h, Flor i da , 50 F . 3d 92 2, 92 6 (11 th C i r. 19 95 ). T here w er e a dequ at e s t at e r em edi es avai l abl e t o A bel e w i th res pectt o eac h of the al l eged prop erty depri vat i on s. F i rs t , H ernand o C ou nty provi ded evi dence s h o w in g e a c h o f

th e a lle g e d p r o p e r ty d e p r iv a tio n s w e r e e f f e c te d ( 1 ) a f

te rf ie ld i ns pe c t or s f

ound vi ol a t i ons of

the bui l di ng c ode or di na nc e a nd pr ovi de d not i c e of the vi ol at i on s t o the re spec t i ve ow ners of the prop erty or ( 2) pu rs uantt o a court o r d e r . N e x t, A b e le c o u ld h a v e c h a lle n g e d th e f in d in g s o f

th e H e rn a n d o C o u n ty f i e l d i ns pe c t or s , a c t i ng unde rthe aus pi c e s of the bui l di ng c ode or di na nc e s , by15

f ilin g a n ap p e a l w ith th e H e rn a n d o C o u n ty B o a r d o f A d ju s tm e n ts a n d A p p e a ls . See C hapt e r4 of

H e rna ndo C ounty S t a nda r d B ui l di ng A ba t e m e ntC ode ; H e rna ndo C o u n ty O r d in a n c e N o . 2 0 0 1 - 2 2 , § 1 0 8 . T h e d e c is io n o f th e H e rn a n d o C o u n ty B o a r d o f A d ju s tm e n t a n d A p p e a ls c o u ld h a v e b e e n ap p e a le d to th e s ta te 's c ir c u it c o u r t. See § 26. 012( 1) , F l a . S t a t . L a s t , r e ga r di ng H e rna ndo C ounty ' s de s truc t i on o f A b e le 's b o a t, as ta te c ir c u it c o u r t is s u e d a n o r d e ra llo w in g H e rn a n d o C o u n ty to d e s tr o y th e b o a t. A b e le c o u ld h a v e ap p e a le d th a t d e c is io n to ah ig h e rs ta te c o u r t. B ec ause there w er e a dequ at e s t at e r em edi es avai l abl e t o A bel e w i th res pectt o eac h of the a l l e ge d pr ope r ty de pr i va t i ons , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n gr a nt i ng su m m ary j u d g m en tt o H ern an d o C o u n ty as t o A b el e' s p ro ced u ral d u e p ro cess cl ai m s. I I . CONCL US I ON T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n ( 1) de ny i ng A be l e ' s m ot i ons f orde f aul tj udgm e nta ga i ns tH e rna ndo C ounty , ( 2) di s m i s s i ng A be l e ' s c om pl a i nt w i thoutpr e

j udi c e a s t o A l i f

f a nd T ol be r t , a nd ( 3) c om pe l l i ng m e di a t i on orde ny i ng A be l e ' s r e que s tf

oranon- l a w y e rm e di a t or . A ddi t i ona l l y , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d not e rrin g r a n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f H e rn a n d o C o u n ty . AF F I RME D.