Case: 13-10582 Date Filed: 08/07/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-10582
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:12-cv-00501-RH-CAS
WILLIAM C. MANLEY,
An Individual,
MMM MANAGEMENT OF TALLAHASSEE INC.,
A Florida Corporation,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
CITY OF TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(August 7, 2013)
Before CARNES, Chief Judge, MARTIN, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-10582 Date Filed: 08/07/2013 Page: 2 of 4
William Manley1 appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice
his complaint against the City of Tallahassee for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Manley alleges that the city deprived him of his
property interests in a parcel of real property without procedural due process when
it granted a site plan amendment for a parcel located next to his. We review de
novo a court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim, accepting the
factual allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. Speaker v. United States Dept. of Health and Human
Servs. Ctrs. for Disease Control and Prevention, 623 F.3d 1371, 1379 (11th Cir.
2010).
In 1981 Manley and Rib, Inc., Manley’s neighboring landowner, agreed to
share the use of a driveway and stormwater drainage system. In 2008 Rib decided
to sell its parcel to Super-Suds Express No. 2, LLC and submitted a site plan
amendment to allow Super-Suds to use the property for a car wash. Manley
alleges that the site plan violates his agreement with Rib and unreasonably alters
the drainage between the properties in violation of state law. The city approved the
plan without giving Manley notice or an opportunity to be heard. Manley argues
that the city’s actions deprived him of his property interest without due process.
1
As the district court noted, Manley assigned the rights at issue in this case to MMM
Management of Tallahassee, Inc. at some point after filing his complaint. Because the
assignment makes no difference in this case and for ease of understanding, we will follow the
district court’s lead and refer to the appellant as Manley.
2
Case: 13-10582 Date Filed: 08/07/2013 Page: 3 of 4
“In assessing a claim based on an alleged denial of procedural due process a
court must first decide whether the complaining party has been deprived of a
constitutionally protected liberty or property interest. Absent such a deprivation,
there can be no denial of due process.” Econ. Dev. Corp. of Dade Cnty, Inc. v.
Stierheim, 782 F.2d 952, 953–54 (11th Cir. 1986). Manley cites several Florida
cases establishing that rezoning procedures require giving all affected landowners
notice and an opportunity to be heard. See, e.g. Gulf & Eastern Development
Corp. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 354 So.2d 57, 59 (Fla. 1978). Manley argues that
he should be treated like a landowner who has been affected by the rezoning of a
neighboring parcel. See WAGS Transp’n Sys, Inc. v. Miami Beach, 88 So.2d 751,
752 (Fla. 1956) (holding that the rezoning of an area affected the rights of
neighboring landowners and they should have been given the opportunity to be
heard).
Zoning cases do not apply here, however. Zoning laws give landowners
certain property interests, such as the right to live in a residential area. If a
government changes zoning laws to allow non-residential developments in an area,
it has deprived the neighboring landowners of a property interest because they no
longer have the benefit of residential-only land use restrictions and their property
values likely will decrease. Cf. WAGS, 88 So.2d at 752 (holding that the
landowners’ property interests were affected by the rezoning because they bought
3
Case: 13-10582 Date Filed: 08/07/2013 Page: 4 of 4
the property relying on the zoning ordinance that required all property in the
district to be residential and a change in that zoning would decrease the value of
their property). In contrast, the approval of the site plan did not deprive Manley of
any property interests given to him by the agreement with Rib or state law. The
fact that the city approved the site plan does not prevent a state court from finding
that construction under the plan violated the agreement or state law. See Westland
Skating Ctr, Inc. v. Gus Machado Buick, Inc., 542 So.2d 959, 964 (Fla. 1989)
(holding that a landowner’s compliance with a building code was not a defense to a
claim that his construction violated Florida drainage laws). As the district court
correctly found, Manley still has the same property interests in the driveway and
the stormwater drainage system that he had before the site plan was approved, and
if the new construction hurts those interests, Manley can pursue a remedy in state
court.
AFFIRMED.
4