F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT March 28 , 2 007 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1152 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 01-01449 -CV -J-16MCR GENE A. YOUNGBLOOD , indiv iduallyand as Chairm an of the Bo ar d/P as tor

of F ir st So uth er n B ap tis t C hur ch , FIRS T C ON SE RVA TI VE BA PT IST CHURCH OF J ACKSONVILLE, a Fl or id a n ot -fo r-p ro fit co rp or at io n, Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s,
ve rs us FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALT H, ana ge nc y

/po lit ic al sub div isi on o f the S ta te of Florida, JA ME S SL IV A , a s an in div idu al a nd/ or as a n a ge nt/ em

plo y ee of the S ta te of

F lor ida D ep ar tm en t of H ea lth , W IL L IA M N O W L IN , a s an in div idu al a nd/ or as a n a ge nt/ em

plo y ee of the S ta te of

F lor ida D ep ar tm en t of H ea lth , A D E L IN E D O BS O N , a s an in div idu al a nd/ or as a n a ge nt/ em

plo y ee of the S ta te of

F lor ida D ep ar tm en t of H ea lth , CITY OF JAC KSONVILLE, FL,2

D A V ID BO Y D , a s an in div idu al a nd/ or as a n a ge nt/ em

plo y ee of the Ci ty of Ja ck so nv il le , FL, ROG ER BU TL ER , a s an indiv idual an d/o r a s an a ge nt/ em

plo y ee of the Ci ty of Ja ck so nv il le , FL, CH U CK P E RRE T T , a s an in div idu al and/or as an agent/em

ploy ee of the Ci ty of Ja ck so nv il le , FL, et al ., Defen da nt s- App el le es .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(M ar ch 28, 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, A N D E RS O N a nd B IR CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: G en e A
. Y oung blo od and F ir st C onse rv at ive Ba pti st C hur chof

Ja ck sonv ill e (“ Pl ai nti ff

s” ) ap pe al the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t f

or the F lor ida D ep ar tm en t of H ea lth( “ D O H ”) ; D O H e m plo y ee s Jam es S liv a, A de lin e D obso n,
an d W ill ia m

N ow lin ; the Ci ty

of Ja ck sonv ill e (“ Ci ty ”) ; and C ity e m plo y ee s D av id Bo y d, Ro ge r Bu tle r, a nd C huc k P er re tt (c oll ec tiv el y

“ D ef en dants ”)
. B ec au se no
r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r

h a s b e e n s h o w n , w e a f

f i r m. V ie w ing the r ec or d inthe li ght m ost f av or ab le to Pl ai nti ff

s, the se a sse rt ion s
ar e the f ac ts. P la int if

fs pos se ss r ea l pr ope rty

on whic h th ey

ope rate the F ir st3

C o n s e rv a t i v e B ap t i s tC h u r c h ( “c h u r c h ” ) a n dt h e C o n s e rv a t i v e C h r i s t i a n A c a d e my (“ school”). U nder state law , the D OH conducts p eriodic and unschedu led ins pe ct ion s of

sc hool a nd f

ood- se rv ic e fa ci lit ie s. O n 2 M ay 200 1, D ef

en dant S liv a
w as gr an te d a cc es s to a nd e nte re d th e pr ope rty to co nduc t an in spe ct ion
. D ur ing the ins pe ct ionof

akit ch ena re a use d by

the sc hool , S liv a sawaplay gr ound a nd
w al ke d ou t t o in spe ct

it
. Y oung blo od, the pa sto r of the c hur ch , tol d S liv a that the chur chpla

y gr ound w as not part of the sc hool a nd the re fo re be y ond his auth or ity to ins pe ct . Although Sliva com

pleted a report on which he m arked the inspection as

“ co m ple te ” an d “ sa tis fa ct or

y , ” he tol d hi s su

pe rv iso r, D ef

en dant D obso n, that he
wa s not gi ven access to inspect the play ground or classroom s. D obso n then di sc us se d t he in sp ect io n wi th he r su pe rv is or , Gale Tu ck er, wh o d eci de d t ha t DOH shou ld r et ur n to the pr ope rty

f or f urthe r ins pe ct ionof

the c la ssr oom s and play gr ound
. T uc ke r w ro te Y oung blo od a le tte r ab out

thi s de ci sio n, but Youngblo od called DO H to tell the agency not to return. D OH then coordinated
w iththe Ja ck sonv ill e Sh er if f’ s O ff ic e (“ JS O ”) to pr ovi de se curi ty dur ing the planne d in spe ct ion
. O n 16 May

200 1, D O H ins pe ct or s and J SO of fi ce rs a rr ive d a t the pr ope rty and entered the foy er area. D orothyYoungblo od, w ife of the pastor, inform edDef

endants c ontend that no such thre ats wer e made
. 1 Pa sto r Yo un gblo od

a lle g e dly tol d th e of

fi c e rs that he wo uld

c los e the sc ho ol b e fo re he wo uld 2 allow the g roup to inspect private chur ch prope rty . Youngblood claims that Defe ndan t Dobson re sp on de d th at th e pa sto r s ho uld g o a he a d a nd c los e the sc ho ol. Florida Statutes section 381.0025(2) pr ovides that “a ny person who inter fer es with, hinders, or 3 o p p o s e s an y

e mp lo y e e o f

th e [D O H ] i nth e d is c h ar g e o f h is o r h e r d u ti e s . . . is g uilty of a misdemeanor of

the sec ond deg ree .” 4 De fe n d an t s t h at t h ey co u l dn o ti n s p ec tth e p re m i s es wi t h o u th erh u s b an d ’s ap pr ova l. O ff

ic er s th enthr eate ne d to a rr es t and t o in carc er at e Mr s. Y oung blo od i f she did no t allow inspectors “ into th e church. ” Pastor Y oung bloo d then arrived 1 on the sc en e an d to ld D ef en dants that, w ith out

aw ar rant, the y c oul d in spe ct

onl y
w ha t the y nor m al ly ins pe ct . O ff

ic er s th enthr eate ne d to a rr es t the pa sto r if he did not sub m it to the ins pe ct ionof “ al l the f ac ili tie s. ” A ft er

Y oung blo od a ga in 2 refused ac cess, officer s issued a Notice to Appear for Y oung bloo d’ s alleged vi ol at io n o f Fl or id a la w. 3 Plaintiffs’ com

plaint, filed in part under 42 U. S. C. §§ 19 83, 1985, alleged
m an y vio la tio ns o f state a nd f

ed er al c onst itu tio na l r igh ts, inc lud ing f re e ex er ci se of r el igi on, e qua l pr ote ct ion , due pr oc es s, pr iva cy , a nd the r igh t t o be f re e fr om unl aw fu l se ar cha nd s ei zure . P la int if fs a lso c la im ed

that the D O H a nd the Ci ty
w er e ne gli ge nt i n su

pe rv isi ng and r et ai nin g th ei r em plo y ee s and tha t D ef

en dants
co nspi re d to vio la te P la int if fs ’ r igh ts. F ir st, the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly gr an te d inThe district c ourt dismiss ed Plaintiffs’ claims under the Florida Constit ution to the ex tent they 4 soug ht monetary

damag es bec ause Plaintiffs cited no a uthority -- similar to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the fede ral c ontext-- c reating a civil cause of ac tion for monetar y relief under the Florida

Constit ution. See Resha v. T ucker , 670 So. 2d 56, 58-59 (Fla . 1996). Also, the district court conclude d that the El e ve nth Am e ndme nt b ars Pla int if fs ’ c la ims fo r mon e tary dama g e s a g a ins t the DO H and the state ins pe c tor s in

the ir of fi c ia l c a pa c iti e s. Cr os s v . A la

ba ma , 4 9 F .3 d 1 49 0, 15 03 (1 1th Cir . 199 5) . But, the district court did not dismiss most of Plaintiffs’ claims to the extent they soug ht declar atory

and injunctive relief

. The district cour

t di d d ismiss Plaintiffs’ claim for ne g lige nt supervision and re te nti on be c a us e Pla int if

fs did no t pr op e rl y a lle g e c omp lia nc e wi th t he pr e su it n oti c e re qu ir e me nts of F lorida Statutes section 768.28(6)
. The district cour

t gr anted summary

judgme nt on the rema ining c laims for monetar y relief 5 beca use either (1) Plaintiffs failed to establish the vi olation of a constitutional or st atutory rig ht; or (2) to the e x tent that Plaintiffs had shown a violation of fe dera l constituti onal rig hts b y the DOH Inspectors and J SO Offic ers, the district court concluded these Def endants we re e ntitled to qualified immun ity be c a

us e su c h ri g hts we re no t c le arl y e sta bli sh e d. Pla int if

fs ’ f e de ra l c la ims a g a ins t th e City failed be cause Plaintiffs failed to show the City had a policy or custom that violated their r ights a nd be c a us e the JSO of

fi c e rs the mse lve s c omm itt e d n o c on sti tut ion a l v i o l a t i o n . O n th e re ma ini ngc la ims f o r d e c l a r at o r

y an d i n j un c t i v e r e l i e f

, th e d i s tr i c tc o urtc o n c l u d e d th atP l a i n t i f

f s l a c k e d A rt i c l e III s t an d i ngto reque st such relief beca use Plaintiffs’ fa iled to show the exist ence of a c ontinuing jus tic ia ble c ontr ov e rs y

or a re a l and imm e diate thr e at.

5 part the m oti ons of

se ve ra l D ef

en dants to dis m iss som e of the c la im s inthe
co m pla int
. L at er , the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d su m m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of a ll 4 De fe n d an t s o n ea ch o f P l ai n t i ff s ’ re m ai n i n g cl ai m s . We re v i ew a d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 5 gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t de nov o and e xa m ine the f ac ts i n th e lig ht m ost favor ab le to the non m ovi ng p ar ty . Cr uz v. P ubl ix S upe r Mkt s. , I nc . , 428 F
. 3d 1379 , 1382 (11th Cir. 2005). Fi rs t, the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly gr an te d su m

m ar y j udgm en t onP la int if

fs ’
rem aining claim s for declar atory or injunctive re lief. W e agre e w ith the dis trict
co urt tha t P la int if

fs la ck A rt ic le I II standi ng t o r ec ei ve pr ospe ct ive r el ie f be ca useWh il e n o n e o f th e D e f e n d an t D O H in s p e c to r s h av e r e tu r n e d to th e p r o p e rty , th e D O H h as 6 conducte d sev er al i n s pections of the pr operty without incident since 2001. Also, no state policy allows inspection of private church facilities, and P laintiffs have alleg ed no facts to demonstrate a re a l or imm e diate thr e at that the DO H or oth e r g ov e rnme nt of fi c e rs wi ll p e rf

or m su c h in sp e c tio ns . 6 the thr eat of

f uture inj ur

y “ re m ai ns c onj ec tur al , hy pothe tic al , or

c ont ing en t, a nd not r ea l and i m

m ed ia te . ” S hot z v. Cate s, 256 F
. 3d 1 077, 108 2 ( 11th C ir
. 200 1) (citation and quo tation m arks om itted). 6 N ex t, P la int if

fs c la im that D ef en dants vio la te d P la int if

fs ’ f re e ex er ci se ri ght s un de r the state a nd f ed er al c onst itu tio ns and unde r the F lor ida Re lig iou s Fr ee dom Re sto ratio n A ct

( “ FRFR A ”)
. P la int if

fs a sse rt that D ef en dants ’ a ct s forced P laintiffs “ to either forfe it their m inistry or subm it to the un constitu tional
warrantless sear ches of private property .” W e agre e w ith the dis trict court that Plaintiffs have alleged insufficient fac ts to sh ow how D efendants’ acts violated Pl ai nti ff s’ r igh t t o f

re e ex er ci se of

r el igi on. A n a tte m

pt b y state a nd l oc al of

fi ci al s to e nf or ce ane utr al a nd g en er al ly appl ic ab le lawor

r eg ulator y str uc tur e is n o vio la tio n of

the F re e E xe rc ise Cl au se . W ar ne r v. Ci ty

of Bo ca Raton , 420 F
. 3d 1308 , 131 0 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5)
. A lso , a lth oughF RF RAr equir es that c ourts a ppl y str ic t sc ru tin y

to a Fl or ida

lawthat su

bst an tia lly

bur de ns the f

re e ex er ci se of
re lig ion , F la
. S ta t. §§ 7 61. 03 ( 2003 ), P la int if fs ha ve f ai le d to de m onstrate howPla int if fs a sse rt that Defen dants’ a c ts i mpo se d a su bs tanti a l bu

rd e n b e c a us e Pla int if

fs wo uld 7 h av e h a d t o c l o s e th e c hur c han d s c h o o l t o b e f

r e e f r o mun l aw f

u l e n tr y o n t o th e i r

p r i v at e p r o p e rty. Pla int if fs , h ow e ve r, have fa ile d to a lle g e fa c ts that wou ld de mon str ate that De fe nd ants ’ e ntr y onto private pr op er t y an dsubsequent ac tiviti es there on wer e unlawf ul. Also, a simple alleg ation that Plaintiffs are “ considering ” closingtheir fa cilities is, by itself, insufficient to rise to the le vel of a substantial burden on the f ree exercise of

relig ion. 7 D ef en dants ’ a ct s c onst itu te d a“ subs tanti al bur de n” on P la int if fs ’ f re e ex er ci se of
re lig ion
. 7 Pl ai nti ff s a lso a lle ge that D ef

en dants e nga ge d ina rb itr ar y dis cr im inatio n in vio la tio n of

P la int if fs ’ r igh t t o e qua l pr ote ct ion
. B ut, P la int if fs ha ve pr oduc ed

no
ev ide nc e that D ef

en dants c ar

ry out ins pe ct ion s of

oth er sim ilarl y sit ua te d pr ivate
sc hool s inale ss b ur de nsom e m an ne r or that D ef en dants se le ct ive ly

e nf or ce d a fa ci al ly ne utr al r eg ulator

y sc he m e fo r the pur

pose of dis cr im inatin g a ga ins t Plaintiffs. See Cam

pbell v. Rainbow City , 434 F. 3d 13 06, 1313-14 (11th Cir. 2006 ). W e the re fo re a ff

irm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t on Pl ai nti ff s’ e qua l pr ote ct ionc la im s. N ex t, P la int if

fs c la im that D ef en dants vio la te d th ei r due pr oc es s r igh ts b y
ar bitrari ly iss uin g P as tor

Y oung blo od a

N oti ce to Appe ar

f or his r ef usa l t o a llo w the ins pe ct ionof

the pr ope rty . A lth oughP la int if fs do n ot l ab el the ir

c la im a s a violatio n of either procedural or subs tantive due process, w e conclude that Plaintiffs experience d neither kindof due process violation
. Plaintiffs have fa iled to d em onstrate howD ef

en dants ’ a ct s de pr ive d P la int if fs of ac onst itu tio na llyPlaintiffs pr ivacy claim under

the Flor ida Constitut ion -- which is e ssentially a re statement of 8 its se arc h a

nd se izur e c la im - - l a c ks me ri t be c a us e Pla int if

fs have fa ile d to sh owho w D e fe nd ants ’ a c t s i n f r i n g e d o na l e g i t i m at e e x p e c t at i o no f p r i v a c y. Recognizi ng that administrative sear ches are subject to the war rant re quirement, the district c ourt 9 de te rm ine d D e fe nd ants ’ a c ts a mou nte d to a c on sti tut ion a l vi olatio n b ut d id no t vi olat e a c le arl y established rig ht. Be cause no sear ch o r s eiz ure oc curr ed, we conclude that Def endants did not vio late the F ourt

h A me ndme nt. 8 pr ote ct ed li be rty or pr ope rty int er es t w ith out

a n a de qua te pr oc es s. S ee G ray de n v. Rhodes, 345 F.3d 1225 , 1232 (11th Cir. 2003). A lso, De fendants’ acts -- even as al le ge d by

P la int if fs - - do n ot “ ri se to the le ve l of asub stanti ve due pr oc es s violatio n” because they

cannot “ be charac terized a s arbitrary or conscience shockin g in a constitu tional sens e. ” W addell v. H endry County Sherif f’ s Of fice, 329 F.3d 130 0, 1305 (11th Cir. 2003 ). Pl ai nti ff s f urthe r al le ge that D ef

en dants e nga ge d ina n un law fu l se ar cha nd seizure by

attem pting to search private property without a warrant and therea fter iss uin g Y oung blo od a

N oti ce to Appe ar . T o e sta bli sh a F ourth A m en dm en t 8 violatio n, a plaintiff first m ust dem onstrate the occurrence of “ a sear ch and seizure of that i ndi vid

ua l’ s pe rs on, hou se , pa

pe rs or e ff ec ts, c ondu ct ed

by a n a ge nt o f the go ve rn m en t.” Un it edSta te s v . Bach ne r, 70 6 F .2d11 21 , 11 25 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ). H er e, D ef en dants ’ a ct s c onst itu te d ne ith er ase ar chnor

ase iz ur e. Y oung blo od

9 adm itt ed that JS O of

fi ce rs a nd D O H ins pe ct or s di d no t se ar chor se iz e an ythi ng o n 16 May 2001
. W e do not accept Plaintiffs’ claim that issui ng a Notice to AppearWe h ave re je c te d th e the or

y of “ c ontin uin gse izur e ” in s itu atio ns su c h a s th is whe re the on ly 10 restra int on a person is the re quirement to appe ar in c ourt to answer the state’s c harg es. King sland v. City of Miami, 382 F.3d 1220, 1235- 36 (11th Cir. 2004). 9 to Y oung blo od w as , in ef fe ct , a n arr es t. Ape rs on i s “ se iz ed ” fo r Fo urth A m en dm en t purp ose s on ly if “ a re as ona

ble pe rs on w oul d have be lie ve d th at he
w as not f re e to l eave . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Me nde nha ll, 100 S
. Ct
. 187 0, 187 7 (1 980)
. H er e, JS O of

fi ce rs m er el y

iss ue d aN oti ce to Appe ar , w hic h di d no t

“ se iz e” Y oung blo od, but

r equir ed him to ap pe ar in co urt a t a

la te r da te . B ec au se

10 the f ac ts - - ev ena s a lle ge d by P la int if fs - - do n ot s howthe oc curr en ce of a ny
se ar chor se iz ur e by

D ef en dants , the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y gr an te d D ef

en dants ’
m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t onP la int if

fs ’ unl aw fu l se ar cha nd s ei zure c la im s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso pr ope rl y gr an te d su m

m ar y j udgm en t onP la int if

fs ’ ci vil c onsp ir ac y

c la im
. P la int if

fs ha ve f ai le d to pr ove the thr es hol d e le m en t of thi s cl ai m : the e xis te nc e of

a n un de rl y ing c onst itu tio na l vi olatio n. G JR I nve stm en ts, In c. v. Co unty

of E sc am bia , 132 F
. 3d 1 359, 137 0 ( 11th C ir
. 199 8)
. A lso , Plaintiffs have presented no particularize d allegations th at D efendants reac hed an unde rs tandi ng t o vi olate P la int if fs ’ r igh ts. R ow e v. Ci ty

of F t. L au de rd al e, 279 F. 3d 12 71, 1283 (11t h Cir. 2002 ). T hat DO H e m ploy ees coordinated with JSO of fi ce rs about

m ee tin g a t the pr ope rty

to co nduc t an in spe ct ionis ins uf fi ci en t t o showac onsp ir ac y . P la int if fs c la im of c ivi l c onsp ir ac y , the re fo re , f ai ls.Where we h av e conclude d that no constitutional viol ation occur red at all, we would, in the 11 alternative, uphold the g rant to individuals of qua lified immunit y if we a re mistaken on the violation issue. 10 T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of D ef en dants is af fi rm ed
. 11 AFFIR MED.