Catron v. City of St. Petersburg

• Decision Date: 28 September 2011
• Docket Number: No. 10–12032.,10–12032.
• Citation: 658 F.3d 1260,23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 447
• Parties: Anthony CATRON, Jo Anne Reynolds, William Shumate, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Raymond Young, Plaintiffs–Appellants,Charles R. Hargis, et al., Plaintiffs,v.CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, Defendant–Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

658 F.3d 1260

23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 447

Anthony CATRON, Jo Anne Reynolds, William Shumate, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Raymond Young, Plaintiffs–Appellants,Charles R. Hargis, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, Defendant–Appellee.

No. 10–12032.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Sept. 28, 2011.

Kirsten Noelle Clanton, Neil Chonin, Alice K. Nelson, Southern Legal Counsel, Inc., Gainesville, FL, Catherine A. Bendor, Karen Cunningham, Tulin Ozdeger, National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, Washington, DC, Peter Prescott Sleasman, FL Institutional Legal Services, Newberry, FL, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.Joseph P. Patner, Jane E. Wallace, Saint Petersburg, FL, Defendant–Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.Before EDMONDSON and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and HODGES,^* District Judge.EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge:

In this Section 1983 case, four homeless plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of two ordinances in the City Code of St. Petersburg, Florida (the “City”) and of the City's enforcement of the ordinances.

One ordinance, Section 20–30 (or, the “trespass ordinance”), authorizes certain city agents to issue a temporary trespass warning for specific city land—in effect, an exclusion from the property—on which the agent determined that the warning recipient had “violate[d]” city or state law. The other ordinance, Section 8–321 (or, the “storage ordinance”), prohibits storage of personal property on city land such as parks and rights-of-way. The district court dismissed all of Plaintiffs' claims; we affirm the district court's rulings, except we vacate part of the district court's ruling about the trespass ordinance. Plaintiffs have stated claims on the issues of procedural due process under the United States Constitution and on their right to intrastate travel under the Florida Constitution.

I.

This case involves a complaint against the city of St. Petersburg, Florida, by four homeless residents: Anthony Catron, Raymond Young, Jo Anne Reynolds, and William Shumate (“Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs contend that two city ordinances, Sections 20–30 and 8–321, and the City's manner of enforcement for these ordinances, violate Plaintiffs' rights under the United States and Florida constitutions.

The City has cited, arrested, or confiscated property from each of Plaintiffs for violating the trespass ordinance, the storage ordinance, or both. Plaintiffs filed suit in district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiffs' amended complaint.

On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that the trespass ordinance—both on its face and in practice—violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine, and the right to intrastate travel under the Florida Constitution. Plaintiffs argue that the storage ordinance is void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause.

II.

We review de novo a district court's dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Redland Co., Inc. v. Bank of Am. Corp., 568 F.3d 1232, 1234 (11th Cir.2009).

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Stating a plausible claim for relief requires pleading “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged”: “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id.

III.

Plaintiffs' first three arguments on appeal are about Section 20–30, the trespass ordinance. Briefly stated, the trespass ordinance authorizes certain city employees, including police officers, to issue a “trespass warning,” which warns persons on public property to depart from that property and not to return.

The trespass ordinance gives authority to issue a trespass warning for public property in three instances: (1) “city employees or officials, or their designees, having control over a facility, building, or outdoor area, including municipal parks” may issue a trespass warning to “any individual who violates any city ordinance, rule or regulation, or state law or lawful directive of a city employee or official” for the public property where the violation occurred, (2) a police officer may issue a trespass warning, when the city official in control of the pertinent city property is unavailable, to “any individual who violates any city ordinance or state law” for the public property where the violation occurred but only if “the police officer [has] receive[d] the approval of the officer's immediate supervisor for the issuance of the trespass warning,” and (3) any city employee or official has authority “to issue a trespass warning to any person for any lawful reason for any city property ..., when necessary or appropriate in the sole discretion of the city employee or official.” § 20–30(a)–(b), (g). On its face, the trespass ordinance does not cover public rights-of-way. Section 20–30(a)–(b). But Plaintiffs allege that the City enforces the ordinance “curb to curb”—on public sidewalks and bus shelters located on public sidewalks.

After a person has received a trespass warning, if the person is found on the pertinent public property “in violation of a trespass warning [he] may be arrested for trespassing.” Section 20–30(e).¹ Section 20–30 requires trespass warnings—as exclusions—to be for a limited time. For first-time violations, the trespass—warning period may not exceed one year; for all other violations, the trespass-warning period may not exceed two years. Section 20–30(c).

A person who has been issued a trespass warning (the “warning-recipient”) may apply to exercise lawfully that person's First Amendment rights on the city property that is the subject of the trespass warning, and the city official or employee in control of the property “shall not [ ] unreasonably den[y]” the warning-recipient authorization “to enter the property or premises to exercise his or her First Amendment rights or to conduct municipal business.” Section 20–30(f).

A copy of the trespass warning—it is a writing—issued pursuant to the trespass ordinance must be provided to the warning-recipient, but no formal procedures have been set out by which the recipient of a trespass warning may challenge the basis of the warning or the terms of the warning. Section 20–30(d).²

A.

Plaintiffs first argue that the trespass ordinance is unconstitutional facially, and as applied to Plaintiffs, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.³

The Due Process Clause requires “that a deprivation of life, liberty or property ‘be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.’ ” Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 1493, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985) (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 656, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950)). The government must provide the required notice and opportunity for a hearing “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner,” although the notice and hearing may be postponed until after the deprivation has occurred. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 902, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976).

A Section 1983 procedural due process claim requires a plaintiff to prove three elements: “(1) a deprivation of a constitutionally-protected liberty or property interest; (2) state action; and (3) constitutionally-inadequate process.” Grayden v. Rhodes, 345 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir.2003).

Plaintiffs have a constitutionally protected liberty interest to be in parks or on other city lands of their choosing that are open to the public generally. City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 119 S.Ct. 1849, 1858, 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999) (plurality opinion) (citations omitted) (“[A]n individual's decision to remain in a public place of his choice is as much a part of his liberty as the freedom of movement inside frontiers that is ‘a part of our heritage,’ or the right to move ‘to whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct.’ ”) Whether or not this interest is a fundamental right for the purpose of substantive due process, Doe v. City of Lafayette, 377 F.3d 757, 770–73 (7th Cir.2004), a person may forfeit this liberty right by trespass or other violation of law, Church v. City of Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332, 1345 (11th Cir.1994). But the initial question we decide is not whether Plaintiffs have forfeited a liberty interest by trespass or other violation of law, but what interest Plaintiffs allege they possessed (and then have been deprived of) in the first place.⁴

Plaintiffs' factual allegations that the City prohibited them from being in city parks (in general, and in Williams Park specifically), on public sidewalks, and at bus shelters located on public sidewalks lead us to conclude that “there is more than a sheer possibility” that Plaintiffs have been deprived of a constitutionally protected liberty interest. Cf. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the City has deprived them of liberty interests in two ways, by 1) enforcing the trespass ordinance to prohibit them from having access to a specific park (Williams Park) as ordinarily used by the public; and 2) carrying out a policy of enforcing the ordinance to prohibit their use of all parks in the City open to the public generally. These allegations satisfy the first element for a procedural due process claim.⁵

And the parties do not dispute that state action is present. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2035, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Therefore, due process is needed, and we must determine...