James Edward Hoefling, Jr. v. City of Miami, 811 F.3d 1271

Background

Hoefling lived aboard a seaworthy 29-foot sailboat in Florida state waters for ~8 years; City marine patrol seized and destroyed the vessel during an August 2010 “cleanup.”
Before the seizure, officers had boarded in May 2010, cited minor equipment issues (sanitary device, anchor light), left a code-enforcement notice with no boxes checked, and did not tell Hoefling his boat would be destroyed. Hoefling subsequently remedied cited issues.
On August 20, 2010 the City removed and destroyed the boat while Hoefling was away; he later found the wreckage and personal effects in a dumpster and alleges loss of housing and other harms.
Hoefling sued the City and two officers under § 1983 (procedural and substantive due process; Fourth Amendment seizure), federal admiralty (intentional and negligent destruction of property), and takings claims; he sought compensatory and punitive damages.
The district court dismissed the second amended complaint (Rule 12(b)(6)). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part (substantive due process) and reversed in part, remanding other claims for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper pleading standard for § 1983	Randall/Twombly-Iqbal plausibility standard applies; no heightened pleading	District court applied a heightened pleading rule	Court: No heightened standard; apply Twombly/Iqbal (Randall)
Consideration of earlier incident reports/exhibits omitted from operative complaint	Second amended complaint superseded earlier pleadings; the reports are disputed and cannot be accepted as true	Defendants asked court to rely on prior attached reports to dismiss claims	Court: May not credit prior reports that conflict with operative complaint; district court erred in relying on them
Municipal liability (Monell) pleading requirement	Alleged City policy/custom/cleanup practice leading to unlawful removals — sufficient at pleading stage without naming a single final policymaker	City argued failure to identify final policymaker mandates dismissal	Court: Complaint adequately pled municipal liability plausibly; naming final policymaker not required at Rule 12(b)(6) stage
Fourth Amendment seizure vs. substantive due process	Removal and destruction of a homelike vessel is a Fourth Amendment seizure (Soldal); procedural due process and takings claims viable	City relied on reports to show vessel derelict and seizure reasonable; also maintained substantive due process claim deficient	Court: Fourth Amendment seizure claim permitted; substantive due process claim dismissed (Tinney precludes substantive due process where Fourth Amendment applies)
Qualified immunity on seizure claim	Facts as pleaded show no dereliction or notice; officers not entitled to qualified immunity on pleadings	Officers relied on reports and asserted reasonable belief/dereliction	Court: Must reassess qualified immunity on remand crediting plaintiff’s allegations (do not resolve factual disputes at motion to dismiss)
Takings and ripeness	Alleges physical taking by City requiring compensation under Horne; may need to exhaust state remedies before § 1983	City argued statutory/process defenses and ripeness issues	Court: Remand to address takings and ripeness, considering Horne and Williamson County principles

Key Cases Cited

Leatherman v. Tarrant Cnty. Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (1993) (heightened pleading incompatible with Rule 8 notice pleading)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (Twombly standard applied to civil rights cases)
Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701 (11th Cir. 2010) (no heightened pleading in § 1983 cases post-Iqbal)
Dresdner Bank AG v. M/V Olympia Voyager, 463 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2006) (amended complaint supersedes prior pleadings; court should not treat earlier exhibits as controlling when contradicted)
Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy, custom, or practice causing constitutional violation)
Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (1992) (removal of a mobile home can constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure)
Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378 (11th Cir. 1996) (where Fourth Amendment provides protection for unlawful home seizures, substantive due process claim is foreclosed)
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (post-deprivation remedies can suffice except where an established state procedure makes pre-deprivation process feasible)
Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 135 S. Ct. 2419 (2015) (government must pay just compensation for physical takings)