Richard Reahard Ann P. Reahard v. Lee County
Richard REAHARD; Ann P. Reahard, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LEE COUNTY, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
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 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 deter *1214 mine whether the district court has jurisdiction over this matter.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“[S]entences that fall within the Guidelines range or that are below the statutory maxi- mum are generally reasonable.”)
-
(“[S]en- tences that fall within the Guidelines range or that are below the statutory maximum are generally reasonable.”)
Cited by 23 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.