William Hames v. City of Miami ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 20, 2008
No. 07-11821
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 06-22360-CV-PAS
WILLIAM HAMES,
Plaintiff-Appellant ,
versus
CITY OF MIAMI, FL, a Florida Municipal Corporation,
CITY OF MIAMI FIREFIGHTERS’ AND POLICE
OFFICERS RETIREMENT TRUST, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(May 20, 2008)
Before ANDERSON, HULL and SILER,* Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
__________________
*Honorable Eugene Siler, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by
designation.
After oral argument and careful consideration, the judgment of the district
court is due to be affirmed. With one exception, we agree with the district court
that plaintiff’s due process challenge to the state appellate procedures is not ripe.
The one exception has to do with the fact that the Third District Court of Appeals
has considered and has rejected plaintiff’s appeal of the forfeiture decision issued
with respect to the Trust. Plaintiff argues in this Court that the state review
procedures are unconstitutionally deficient in that the state standard of review
would be a miscarriage of justice standard. However, the Third District Court of
Appeals, in reviewing the Trust’s decision, did not employ a miscarriage of justice
standard. Accordingly, plaintiff’s due process challenge in that regard is moot.
With respect to plaintiff’s due process challenge to the procedures at the
administrative level, we agree with the district court that plaintiff never explained
how the FBI witnesses’ testimony would be relevant, or how he was prejudiced in
failing to have them testify. For this reason, as well as several others, plaintiff’s
challenge to the administrative procedures with respect to the subpoena powers is
without merit. We note that this is the primarily due process challenge raised on
appeal to the procedures at the administrative level.
We also conclude that plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim is
without merit. We agree with the district court that plaintiff failed to show any
2
causal link between his protected activity and the commencement of forfeiture
proceedings. As the district court noted, the commencement of forfeiture
proceedings was mandatory under the statute. Plaintiff’s only challenge to the
district court in this regard apparently is his argument that the crime of which he
was convicted – obstruction of justice – does not fall within the “catch-all”
category of crimes which trigger the statutory forfeiture. We agree with the district
court that the crime of which plaintiff was convicted does trigger the statutory
forfeiture. See Hames v. City of Miami Firefighters & Police Officers Trust, ___
So.2d ___ (2008 WL 583672) (Fla. 3rd DCA 2008). See also Newmans v. State,
Div. of Retirement, 701 So. 2d 573, 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
Finally, we conclude that plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim has been
abandoned on appeal. Although plaintiff apparently intended to mention the claim
in one sentence at page 25 of plaintiff’s initial brief, that sentence is barely
intelligible, and certainly provides no insight or argument as to any error
committed by the district court.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.1
1
Any other arguments on appeal are rejected without need for further discussion.
We deny appellees’ motion for sanctions.
3
4