[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 11 01 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 1- cv -1 43 06 -KMM W ILLIAM J OHN RUDGE, IV, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , ve rs us CITY OF STUART, A Mu ni ci pa l Co rp or at io n, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el le e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 11 , 20 12 ) Befo re MAR CUS, MARTIN an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: W il li am Jo hn Ru dg e, IV, pro ceed in g p ro se, app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s Case: 12-11014 Date Filed: 09/11/2012 Page: 1 of 5gr an t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e Ci ty of Stua rt, Fl or id a o n h is 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 c la im

forin jun ct iv e rel ie f an d m on ey da m ag es . I. InApri l 2 00 9, af

te r he ari ng tes ti m on y

an d c on si de rin g e vi de nc e fro m bo th th e Ci ty of Stua rt andRu dg e, a co de en fo rcem en t m ag is tra te fou ndth atRu dg e’s pr op erty was i n v io la ti on of l oc al ord in an ces . The m ag is tra te ord eredRu dg e to
co m e in to co m

pl ia nc e b y

Ju ly 200 9. App aren tl y , Rud ge di d n ot , bec au se th e Ci ty is su eda no ti ce i n Oct ob er 2 00 9 o rd eri ng hi m to ab at e th e nui sa nc e o n h is pro pe rty
cau se d b y th e v io la ti on s i de nt ifi edin th e m ag is tra te ’s fin di ng s. Th e n ot ic e g av e Ru dg e te n d ay s t o re m edy th e v io la ti on s, an d warne d t ha t i f he di d n ot , th e Ci ty
wou lddo itat h is ex pe ns e. The n ot ic e in fo rm edRu dg e th athe co ul d app eal th at de ci si on to th e Ci ty Comm is si onwithi n t enda y s. On Dec em be r 7, 2 00 9, Ru dg e ha d n otco m e in to co m

pl ianc e, an d t he Cit y

att em pt edto ga in en try to Rud ge ’s pr op erty , bu t Ru dg e p rev en te d i t fr om do in g s o. Th e Ci ty the n fi le d aco m pl ai ntin th e ci rcu itco urt an d s ecu redanord er fo r ex parte tem po rary andpe rm an en t in jun ct iv e rel ie f to ab at e th e nui sa nc e o n R ud ge ’s pro pe rty, citi ng vario us saf ety co nc ern s. Th e co urt i ss ue d a n i nju nc ti on ord eri ng Ru dg e to all ow t he Cit y to en te r hi s p ro pe rty andab at e th e v io la ti on s s pe ci fie d i n t he Octo be r 20 09 no ti ce.

2 Case: 12-11014 Date Filed: 09/11/2012 Page: 2 of 5Afte r a s eri es of u ns uc ces sf ul att em pt s t o g etrel ie f fro m

th e in jun ct io n, 1 Ru dg e fi le d aco m

pl ai ntin fed eral di st ric t co urt al le gi ng th atth e Ci ty of Stua rt vi ol at edhi s ri gh t t o due pro ces s o f la w by ob ta in in g a nden fo rci ng th e ex parte in jun ct io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e Ci ty, an d Ru dg e ap pe al ed
. II. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o, v ie win g al l fa ct s i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on -m ov in g p arty . Ros s v . Cla yto n Cn ty., Ga., 17 3 F .3d13 05 , 13 07 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Summ ary jud gm en t i s p ro pe r whe re the re i s n o g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al factan d t he m ov in g p arty is en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law. Fed . R. Civ . P. 56 (a). Und er § 19 83 , a pe rs on act in g u nd er co lo r of st at e la w m ay

be he ldli ab le fo r de pr iv in g an i nd iv idua l o f a fed eral rig ht . 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3. Th e Co ns ti tu ti on

The e x parte injunction allowed Rudg e to see k a hea ringto dissolve or modify the 1 injunction at any

time. Instead of f

iling a motion to dissolve or modify the injunction, Rudge ’s attorney filed a motion to dismis s the City ’s complaint, which the c ircuit court dismissed. The c ourt modified the tempora ry injunction in March 2010 and August 2010—both times at the City ’s re quest. Rudge appea led the August 2010 order grantinga modified injunction. In J uly

2011, a state a

ppeals c ourt held that the City had a “ clea

r leg al right” under Florida law to enf

orce its nuisance abatement orde r. Then, in August 2011, Rudge f iled a motion to dissolve the ex parte temporar y injunction, arguing that the injunction had been issued w ithout notice in violation of Florida law. The trial court struc k his moti on, findingthat it had alre ady conducte d two evidentiar y hearings f

ollowing the e x parte injunction, and had other wise complied with Florida

law in issuing the initial injunction. 3 Case: 12-11014 Date Filed: 09/11/2012 Page: 3 of 5pr oh ib it s s ta te s fr om de pr iv in g p ers on s o f li fe, l ib erty , or p ro pe rty with ou t due pr oc es s o f la w. See U.S. Co ns t. am en d XIV, § 1; Bu xt on v. Ci ty of Pl an t Ci ty, Fl a., 87 1 F .2d10 37 , 10 41 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). “ The fun da m en ta l re qu ire m en t o f du e pr oc es s i s t he op po rtu ni ty to b e h eardat am ean in gf ul ti m e an d i n am ean in gf ul
m an ne r.” Mat he ws v . Eldrid ge , 42 4 U.S. 3 19 , 33 3, 9 6 S . Ct. 8 93 , 90 2 (1 97 6) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . The Fo urte en th Am en dm en t, h owe ve r, do es no t pr ot ectin di vi du al s ag ai ns t t he vi ol at io n o f st at e p ro cedur al requi rem en ts , pro vi de d th atth e b as ic fed eral du e p ro ces s ri gh t t o n ot ic e an d o pp ortu ni ty to b e h eardha s be enm et . See Fi rs t As se m bl y of Go d o f Nap le s, Fl a., In c. v. Co ll ie r Cn ty., Fla ., 20 F.3d41 9, 4 22 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). In d et erm in in g wh ethe r pr oc es s i s co ns ti tu ti on al ly adequa te , we con si de r: 1 ) th e p riv at e in te res t atst ak e; 2) t he ris k of erro ne ou s d ep riv at io n t hr ou gh ex is ti ng pro cedur es an d the pro babl e v al ue of ad di ti on al pro cedur al saf eg ua rd s; an d 3 ) th e st at e’s in te res t. Eld rid ge , 42 4 U.S. at 33 5, 9 6 S . Ct. at90 3. Th e Supr em e Co urt h as he ldth atin th e an al og ou s co nt ex t of for fei tu re o f rea l p ro pe rty, ex p art e p ro ceed in gs ge ne ral ly do n otpro vi de ad equa te pro cedur al saf

eg ua rd s wh ere t he go ve rn m en t o th erwi se fai ls to pro vi de a pr e-d ep riv at io n h eari ng . Uni te d S ta te s v . Jam es Dani el Goo d R eal Pro pe rty, 510 U.S. 43 , 62 , 11 4 S . Ct. 4 92 , 50 5 (1 99 3)
. W e co nc lu de th atRu dg e rec ei ve d c on st itut io na ll y ad equa te pro ces s o f la w. 4 Case: 12-11014 Date Filed: 09/11/2012 Page: 4 of 5Fi rs t, t o t he ex te ntth atRu dg e arg ue s t he Cit y fai le d t o c om

pl y with t he st at e’s
own pro cedur al m an da te s, tha t cl ai m , witho utm or e, do es no t am ou ntto a de ni al of fed eral du e p ro ces s. See Fir stAss em bl y of Go d o f Nap le s, 2 0 F .3dat 4 22
. Seco nd , Rud ge ’s cla im

th athe di d n otrece iv e ad equa te po st -d ep riv at io n re li ef fo ll owi ng th e ex pa rte in

jun ct io n i s b es id e th e p oi nt , bec au se he rece iv edad equa te pr e-d ep riv at io n n ot ic e an d o pp ortu ni ty to b e h eard . Cf. James Dan ie l Go odReal Pro pe rty, 510 U.S. at 4 7, 1 14 S. Ct. at49 7– 98 . The Ci ty’ s Oct ob er 2 00 9 n ot ic e to ab at e th e nui sanc e warn edRu dg e th athe ha d t enda y s t o re m edy vi ol at io ns of sp eci fic ord in an ces , or t he Cit y wou lden te r hi s p ro pe rty anddo itforhi m . Thu s, th e Ci ty gav e Ru dg e n ot ic e o f th e act io n i t i nt en de d t o t ak e. Mo re i m po rtant ly, th e Octo be r 20 09 no ti ce g av e Ru dg e anop po rtu ni ty to ap pe al th atde ci si on . The Ci ty th us ga ve Ru dg e anop po rtu ni ty to b e h eard . There fo re, b y th e ti m e th e Ci ty file d it s co m pl ai ntforanex pa rte in

jun ct io n, i t h adalr eady

gra nt edRu dg e ad equa te
no ti ce an d o pp ortu ni ty to b e h eard
. 2 III. Fo r th es e rea so ns , we AFFIRM th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t.
We emphasize that the ex parte injunction allowed the City to do no more than it was 2 authorized to do under the O ctober 2009 notice. 5 Case: 12-11014 Date Filed: 09/11/2012 Page: 5 of 5