Jung Bea Han v. Nicole McDonald
408 F. App'x 289
11th Cir.2011Background
- Han, a Florida private citizen proceeding pro se, sues FDEP employees McDonald and Fancher under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Han alleges the FDEP imposed a monetary administrative penalty after criminal charges for the same acts were dismissed.
- Plaintiff asserts violations of the Double Jeopardy, Due Process, and Equal Protection Clauses.
- Defendants move to dismiss; district court denied, and later McDonald and Fancher filed an amended motion to dismiss with memorandum of law.
- Han appeals asserting improper dismissal, improper consideration of the amended motion, and magistrate’s discretionary findings; Rooker-Feldman issue is raised and argued.
- Court addresses jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman, then analyzes Double Jeopardy claim, motion-to-dismiss procedure, appellate-raising limitations, and summary-judgment posture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rooker-Feldman applicability | Han contends Rooker-Feldman bars federal review. | McDonald/Fancher argue doctrine applies to state-court loser suits. | Rooker-Feldman does not apply; state proceedings were pending. |
| Double Jeopardy claim viability | Han asserts the administrative penalty violates Double Jeopardy. | Penalty is civil in nature and not criminal punishment; not violative. | Penalty not criminal punishment; no § 1983 claim. |
| Amended motion-to-dismiss consideration | District court erred by considering amended motion lacking proper contact and memorandum. | Defendants cured deficiencies with amended motion and memorandum; proper. | Court did not err in considering amended motion. |
| Magistrate discretion raised for the first time on appeal | Magistrate’s finding of legitimacy of actions was erroneous. | Issue not preserved; raised too late on appeal. | Issue not reviewed on appeal. |
| Summary-judgment posture and overall § 1983 claim | Due Process/Equal Protection claims or other § 1983 bases may survive. | No viable federal-right deprivation shown; default-judgment/summary-judgment appropriate. | No genuine dispute of material fact; district court’s denial of summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2009) (Rooker-Feldman de novo review and timing of state proceedings)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (Supreme Court 2005) (Rooker-Feldman confines jurisdiction to final-state-court judgments)
- Belanger v. Salvation Army, 556 F.3d 1153 (11th Cir. 2009) (statutory interpretation is a legal matter reviewed de novo)
- Cole v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 133 F.3d 803 (11th Cir. 1998) (civil penalty analysis; punitive transformation standard)
- Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (preservation and claims raised in district court bar on appeal)