Filed: Sep. 18, 2013
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: Case: 13-11373 Date Filed: 09/18/2013 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-11373 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 2:10-cv-00735-UA-DNF TIMOTHY M. BUNCK, LINDA J. BUNCK, Plaintiff -Appellants, versus GARY R. KING, WILLIAM A. BOYD, DOLORES D. MENENDEZ, CITY OF CAPE CORAL, as a corporate municipality, CITY OF CAPE CORAL, as a person under the meaning of 1983, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court
Summary: Case: 13-11373 Date Filed: 09/18/2013 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-11373 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 2:10-cv-00735-UA-DNF TIMOTHY M. BUNCK, LINDA J. BUNCK, Plaintiff -Appellants, versus GARY R. KING, WILLIAM A. BOYD, DOLORES D. MENENDEZ, CITY OF CAPE CORAL, as a corporate municipality, CITY OF CAPE CORAL, as a person under the meaning of 1983, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court f..
More
Case: 13-11373 Date Filed: 09/18/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-11373
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:10-cv-00735-UA-DNF
TIMOTHY M. BUNCK,
LINDA J. BUNCK,
Plaintiff -Appellants,
versus
GARY R. KING,
WILLIAM A. BOYD,
DOLORES D. MENENDEZ,
CITY OF CAPE CORAL,
as a corporate municipality,
CITY OF CAPE CORAL,
as a person under the meaning of 1983,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(September 18, 2013)
Case: 13-11373 Date Filed: 09/18/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Before DUBINA, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy and Linda Bunck appeal pro se the dismissal of their third amended
complaint against the City of Cape Coral, Florida, and its officials, Gary King,
William Boyd, and Delores Menendez. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court
dismissed the Buncks’ third amended complaint for failure to state a claim for
relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We affirm.
The Buncks alleged that they paid sewer fees to the City of Cape Coral,
Florida, for 18 years when, unbeknownst to them, their home was connected to a
septic tank and City officials then ignored four letters in which the Buncks
demanded that the City refund those fees. The Buncks also alleged that City
Ordinance 19-2.5 created an “irrebuttable presumption” that their property had
been connected to the city sewer system and required them to pay sewer charges.
The Buncks’ complaint alleged an infringement of their liberty and property
interests protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and a violation of
their right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The district court did not err by dismissing the Buncks’ complaint. The
Buncks alleged that the officials’ failure to respond to the demand letters or
promptly provide a refund violated their right to substantive due process, but the
Buncks failed to allege that they were deprived of any recognized fundamental
2
Case: 13-11373 Date Filed: 09/18/2013 Page: 3 of 3
right, see Albright v. Oliver,
510 U.S. 266, 272,
114 S. Ct. 807, 812 (1994), or that
the official inaction they alleged could “properly be characterized as arbitrary, or
conscience shocking, in a constitutional sense,” Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis,
523
U.S. 833, 847,
118 S. Ct. 1708, 1717 (1998) (quoting Collins v. City of Harker
Heights, Tex.,
503 U.S. 115, 128,
112 S. Ct. 1061, 1070 (1992)). The Buncks also
complained that Ordinance 19-2.5 created an “irrebuttable presumption” that
violated their right to substantive due process, but the Buncks failed to identify any
fundamental right violated by the ordinance, which we review for a rational basis.
See Bannum, Inc. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.,
157 F.3d 819, 822 (11th Cir.
1998). Because the ordinance is rationally related to the legitimate interests of the
City in disposing of waste and being compensated for that service, the Buncks
failed to state a claim of a denial of substantive due process. Although the district
court also addressed on the merits the Buncks’ claims that the failure to respond to
their requests for a refund deprived them of property without adequate process and
denied them “equal protection of the laws,” the Buncks expressly abandoned those
claims on appeal.
We AFFIRM the dismissal of the Buncks’ complaint.
3