Opinion ID: 3063500
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prior Similar Action

Text: This is the second federal complaint of this nature that has been filed regarding Appellants’ Lot 15A. In January 2008, Appellant Busse filed a complaint that made near identical allegations to the instant complaint, with the exception of the allegations regarding the April 2008 fire. Appellant Prescott was not a party in the previous case. On May 5, 2008, the district court dismissed the first complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The district court determined that it lacked jurisdiction because Busse had not yet pursued available state court remedies and the Takings Clause claim therefore was not ripe for review. To the extent that Busse’s complaint alleged that the taking of his property raised a substantive due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, the district court concluded that there was no independent substantive due process Constitution; (4) the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; (5) the federal common law doctrines of accretion and erosion; (6) the Federal Appraisal Standards, Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, and 12 U.S.C. §§ 3331-3351; (7) the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201; and (8) the 1862 Homestead Act. 4 claim concerning takings and that property rights were not fundamental rights that would support a substantive due process claim. The district court dismissed Busse’s procedural due process claims regarding Lee County Resolution 569/875 because the Resolution was a legislative act that was not subject to a procedural due process claim and, even if it was not, Busse still had not alleged that Florida’s post-deprivation remedy was inadequate. The district court also found that Busse had not stated an equal protection claim because he had not alleged that there was a similarly situated person for comparison and the state could not be a comparator. The district court analyzed the other alleged bases for federal jurisdiction and found that they were all inadequate.3 After dismissing Busse’s federal claims, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Accordingly, the district court dismissed Busse’s first complaint without prejudice.4 Busse appealed the district court’s dismissal of his first complaint, and this Court affirmed. Busse v. Lee County, Florida, No. 08-13170, 2009 WL 549782 (11th Cir. Mar 5, 2009) (unpublished). 3 Specifically, the district court found that: (1) Articles III and IV of the U.S. Constitution did not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction; (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1343 was not a basis for federal jurisdiction because there were no federal civil rights claims before the court; (3) the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act was inapplicable; (4) the 1862 Homestead Act had been repealed; (5) if the federal common law doctrines of accretion and erosion existed, they did not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction; and (6) the Federal Appraisal Standards were inapplicable. 4 The Appellants filed the complaint in the present case on the same day that the district court dismissed the first complaint. 5