Opinion ID: 47302
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Abele Stated a Claim of Denial of Due Process.

Text: We previously concluded that Abele’s original complaint raised the federal questions “whether the defendants violated Abele’s constitutional right to due process of law . . . [and] the Takings Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.” Abele, No. 04-14885. The Second Amended Complaint did not allege a taking, but, construed liberally, the complaint raised a federal question of due process when it alleged that Aliff entered Abele’s property “and without any legal notice as required by Federal and State Statutes and the 6 relevant Case Law(s), he commenced to demolish the res.” Abele also alleged he was denied the “bare essentials of law” as guaranteed “under State and Federal Constitution(s).” Although it was undeniably difficult to unravel Abele’s complaint, the district court erroneously ignored this federal question. “The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a private citizen be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before a government official seizes his or her property.” Quik Cash Pawn & Jewelry, Inc. v. Sheriff of Broward County, 279 F.3d 1316, 1322 (11th Cir. 2002). Count I of Abele’s complaint, construed liberally, states a claim that the defendants destroyed one or more of Abele’s properties or homes without notice or a hearing—i.e., that the defendants violated Abele’s right to procedural due process. The motion to dismiss this claim should have been denied.