Whether the Eleventh Circuit's opinion citing res judicata allows the government to overextend and leverage its permitting monopoly to take private property without just compensation violates the Takings Clause

Petitioner Jeffrey Lance Hill, Sr. was born on an 800acre farm in 1955 in Columbia County, Florida. Hill’s parents purchased the farm in 1949. Hill replaced a rusted culvert pipe on his farm in 2006. The pipe was ‘ originally installed in 1966. In 2006, Respondent Suwannee River Water Management District (Agency) demanded Hill obtain a permit from them to replace the pipe. Hill did not obtain a permit from Agency. Agency filed a complaint in state court and obtained a $100,000.00 fine and $280,376.20 for attorneys’ fees. Hill has sought relief in both state and. federal courts continuously since 2006. In 2018, Agency filed im state court to foreclose on the $380,376.20 judgments. In 2015, pursuant to the foreclosure, the state court ordered the Columbia County Court clerk to give a deed to ~81 acres of Hill’s farm to Agency. Hill filed a complaint in the U. S. District Court. The District Court dismissed’ the complaint citing Rooker-Feldman. Hill timely appealed to the U.S. Eleventh Circuit, which vacated and remanded that decision. Subsequently, the District Court again dismissed the complaint citing res judicata. On timely appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District. Court’s dismissal, citing judicial immunity and res judicata. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion citing res judicata allows the government to overextend and leverage its permitting monopoly to take private i property without just compensation violates the Takings Clause in light of Sheetz & Stop. Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 144 S.Ct. 893 (2024); Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Dept. of ‘ Environmental Protection, 560 U.S. 702 (2010). 2. Whether the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion citing judicial immunity and res judicata constitutes a judicial taking proscribed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in light of Knick and Koontz. Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S.Ct. 2162 (2019); Koontz v. St. Johns River Waier Mgmt. Dist., 570 U.S. 595 (2018). 3. Whether the $100,000.00 fine imposed in the state court violated the 8th Amendment to the United ‘ States Constitution. 4, Whether the Due Process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution were violated when trial by jury was demanded by the Plaintiff and denied in the District Court.