Foley v. Orange County, 638 F. App'x 941

The Foleys bred and sold toucans from their home and were cited by Orange County for accessory buildings on residential property lacking permits.
The zoning manager’s interpretation requiring permits was affirmed by the Board of Zoning Adjustment, the County Commission, the Florida circuit court, and the Fifth District Court of Appeal.
The Foleys sued in federal court alleging state-law challenges and four federal constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: substantive due process, equal protection (class-of-one), First Amendment (compelled/commercial speech), and Fourth Amendment (illegal seizure).
The District Court granted partial summary judgment for the County on the federal claims; the Foleys appealed pro se.
The Eleventh Circuit examined whether federal-question jurisdiction existed because the federal claims might be frivolous under Bell v. Hood and related authority.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Substantive due process — zoning enforcement	County’s upholding of zoning determination deprived Foleys of property/liberty	Zoning enforcement concerns property regulation and is rationally related to legitimate government purpose; also enforcement is executive, not legislative	Dismissed: claim lacks merit under rational-basis and non-legislative-act principles
Equal protection — class-of-one	Foleys were treated differently than similarly situated property owners	No comparator shown that is prima facie identical; no intentional, unjustified differential treatment	Dismissed: no plausible class-of-one claim
First Amendment — compelled/commercial speech	Requests for determinations and appeals amounted to compelled or commercial speech	The Foleys’ voluntary administrative actions are neither compelled speech nor commercial expression	Dismissed: not compelled or commercial speech
Fourth Amendment — illegal seizure	Fees, appeals, and possible special-exception process constitute seizure	These were voluntary transfers/choices and do not constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure	Dismissed: voluntary actions do not amount to seizure

Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (frivolous federal claims do not confer jurisdiction)
Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (class-of-one equal protection standard)
Johanns v. Livestock Mktg. Ass’n, 544 U.S. 550 (First Amendment—compelled speech principles)
Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557 (commercial speech doctrine)
Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (voluntary transfer and seizure analysis under the Fourth Amendment)
DeKalb Stone, Inc. v. Cty. of DeKalb, 106 F.3d 956 (substantive due process and limits on non-legislative acts)
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala. v. Sanders, 138 F.3d 1347 (Bell exception application)