Reahard v. Lee County

No. 91-3593 (978 F.2d 1212) (11th Cir. December 8, 1992)

The court amends its decision at 22 ELR 21455, which vacated and remanded a magistrate judge's decision that a Florida county's land use plan resulted in a taking of waterfront property under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. In its amended opinion, the court directs the magistrate judge to reexamine the question of ripeness and determine whether the district court has subject matter jurisdiction. The court directs the magistrate judge to develop factual issues and make relevant factual findings regarding the property owners' efforts to secure appropriate administrative remedies, because there is nothing in the record regarding the judicial remedies available in Florida's state courts or the property owners' pursuit of those remedies.

Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees
Jeffrey R. Garvin, Theodore L. Tripp
Garvin & Tripp
2532 E. First St., P.O. Drawer 2040, Ft. Myers FL 33902
(813) 334-1824

Counsel for Defendant/Appellant
John J. Renner, Ass't County Attorney
2115 Second St., Ft. Myers FL 33901
(813) 335-2236

Jonathan A. Glogau, Ass't Attorney General
Attorney General's Office
Special Projects Division
The Capitol, PL 01, Tallahassee FL 32399
(904) 488-5899

Before FAY and BIRCH, Circuit Judges, and DYER, Senior Circuit Judge.

[23 ELR 20369]

FAY, Circuit Judge:

The original opinion in this case is published at 968 F.2d 1131 (11th Cir.1992). However, upon further review of this matter, the court is concerned about the question of subject matter jurisdiction. We are aware that the United States magistrate judge denied Lee County's motion to dismiss for lack of ripeness, and the parties did not raise the issue on appeal. However, ripeness is a question of subject matter jurisdiction. Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n. 7 (11th Cir.1989). We always must investigate questions of subject matter jurisdiction, whether or not they are raised by the parties to the case. Fitzgerald v. Seaboard System R.R., 760 F.2d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir.1985).

Therefore, we supplement our original opinion to instruct the magistrate judge to revisit the question of ripeness on remand and determine whether the district court has jurisdiction over this matter. We recognize that in this case, the question of subject matter jurisdiction is quite fact specific. There is some question regarding the Reahards' efforts to secure appropriate administrative remedies. This was touched upon but not developed. Moreover, there is nothing in the record regarding the judicial remedies available in Florida state courts, or the Reahards' pursuit of those remedies. Assuming that these claims could be satisfied through adequate state judicial procedures, the Reahards have not [23 ELR 20370] stated a ripe federal claim under Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S. Ct. 3108, 87 L. Ed. 2d 126 (1985), and there is no subject matter jurisdiction.

We instruct the magistrate judge, on remand, to develop these factual issues fully, make relevant factual findings, and determine whether the district court has jurisdiction over this matter.