66 F.4th 1259
11th Cir.2023Background:
- Boynton Beach enacted a Chronic Nuisance Property Code authorizing the City to declare properties chronic nuisances when the City responds to 3+ nuisance activities in 30 days or 7+ in 6 months and to require owners to sign abatement agreements.
- The Homing Inn (103-room hotel) had 13 emergency calls for drug overdoses by guests between Dec 2017–Apr 2018; six calls within 30 days produced a pattern under the Code.
- The City declared the hotel a chronic nuisance, proposed an abatement agreement, and after procedural steps a special magistrate found the owners in violation; the City posted a window sign notifying the public.
- Hotel owners appealed in state court while also filing a federal § 1983 suit claiming First Amendment violations (owners’ and guests’ rights) and a Fourteenth Amendment due-process deprivation; district court granted summary judgment for the City.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding the owners’ First Amendment claims failed on the merits and for lack of prudential (third-party) standing, and that the Due Process claim was not cognizable under § 1983 because state remedies were available and owners failed to plead their inadequacy.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Code enforcement violated owners’ First Amendment rights (penalized or chilled owners’ speech) | Code punishes owners when guests call 911 and therefore chills owners’ protected speech and petitions | Enforcement was based on guests’ calls; owners/employees did not make counted calls and presented no evidence their speech was penalized or chilled | Rejected: owners’ own First Amendment rights were not violated (no penalty or credible chill shown) |
| Whether owners have prudential standing to assert hotel guests’ First Amendment right to call 911 (overbreadth/jus tertii) | Owners may challenge statute as overbroad or assert guests’ rights (jus tertii) because the Code allegedly chills guests from calling 911 | Code punishes only property owners (not guests); neither overbreadth nor jus tertii applies because no enforcement against guests and no causal link where owners’ compliance would violate guests’ rights | Rejected: owners lack prudential third-party standing; overbreadth inapplicable; jus tertii fails for lack of causal connection and misaligned interests |
| Whether the posting and enforcement deprived owners of property without due process (Fourteenth Amendment) | Administrative process was procedurally defective and deprived owners of property rights | State provided administrative and appellate remedies; owners did not allege state procedures were unavailable or inadequate and did not pursue available appellate relief | Rejected: claim not cognizable under § 1983 because owners failed to allege inadequacy or unavailability of state remedies; summary judgment for City affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Younger v. Harris, [citation="401 U.S. 37"] (1971) (abstention doctrine for ongoing state proceedings)
- Broadrick v. Oklahoma, [citation="413 U.S. 601"] (1973) (overbreadth doctrine is "strong medicine" and requires substantial impermissible applications)
- New York v. Ferber, [citation="458 U.S. 747"] (1982) (overbreadth invalidation requires substantial number of unconstitutional applications)
- United States v. Raines, [citation="362 U.S. 17"] (1960) (prudential limitation generally bars asserting third-party rights)
- United Food & Com. Workers Union Loc. 751 v. Brown Grp., Inc., [citation="517 U.S. 544"] (1996) (prudential standing is nonjurisdictional)
- Craig v. Boren, [citation="429 U.S. 190"] (1976) (jus tertii standing allowed where litigant’s compliance would infringe third-party rights)
- Griswold v. Connecticut, [citation="381 U.S. 479"] (1965) (example of third-party assertion of rights in provider–patient context)
- CAMP Legal Def. Fund, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, [citation="451 F.3d 1257"] (11th Cir. 2006) (discussion of prudential standing limits)
- McKinney v. Pate, [citation="20 F.3d 1550"] (11th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (§ 1983 procedural-deprivation claim requires alleging state remedies are unavailable)
- Foxy Lady, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, [citation="347 F.3d 1232"] (11th Cir. 2003) (state-provided process can preclude § 1983 claims if remedies exist)
- Holiday Isle Resort & Marina Assocs. v. Monroe Cnty., [citation="582 So.2d 721"] (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991) (constitutional claims cognizable on appeal to circuit court from special magistrate)