Ronald Sutton v. Troy King, Attorney General, et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 9/25/09 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2009 2080718 Ronald Sutton v. Troy King, A t t o r n e y General, e t a l . Appeal THOMAS, facility, Sutton, an sued Troy K i n g , commissioner wardens inmate Billy of state i n a state correctional the attorney general; Richard o f t h e Alabama Governor Bob R i l e y ; Goode, Court Judge. Ronald the from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CV-08-1177) Allen, Department o f C o r r e c t i o n s ; M i t c h e m , Jimmy P a t r i c k , a n d D o r o t h y correctional facilities; and L l o y d 2080718 Wallace, P a t r i c k Robinson, David Tully, and C a r o l y n employees of the Alabama Department of C o r r e c t i o n s , Golson, asserting w h a t a p p e a r s t o b e a 42 U.S.C. § 1 9 8 3 c l a i m t h a t he was access library to the courts library. his claim, was styled court, entered on D e c e m b e r 4, February [filed 13, that a law access the until a judgment hearing in at favor on which of the 2008. 2009, "this pursuant reason: order he c o u l d after Sutton as a R u l e 6 0 ( a ) and 6 0 ( b ) , following court the t r i a l present, w h i c h he a r g u e d motion on t h e t i m e s i n the prison The d e f e n d a n t s m o v e d f o r a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t 1 and defendants On to inadequacies and t h e l i m i t a t i o n law Sutton due denied filed RULE motion A l a . R. C i v . P., Honorable Court to] a 60(A) [Sutton] states he January 2 1 s t , 2009." should and d i d not 2 The that he motion i n grant (B) this f o r the receive this trial court In h i s complaint, Sutton a l s o mentions b r i e f l y that " p h y s i c a l i n j u r y h a s a l r e a d y o c c u r r e d due t o t h e meat p a t t i e s t h a t a r e p r e p a r e d b y i n m a t e s and t h e d i e t t h a t i s s e r v e d . " I t appears t h a t Sutton d i d not i n t e n d t o pursue t h a t c l a i m based upon h i s a r g u m e n t s b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t . I n any e v e n t , t h e d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t on t h a t c l a i m , w h i c h S u t t o n d i d n o t o p p o s e , and t h e t r i a l court e n t e r e d a summary j u d g m e n t f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t s on t h a t c l a i m . 1 S u t t o n made o t h e r a r g u m e n t s , i n c l u d i n g a r g u m e n t s r e l a t e d to the h i s t o r y of r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n the C i t y of Montgomery; however, t h o s e arguments a r e n o t r e l e v a n t t o h i s 2 2 2080718 denied Sutton's appealed 2009. this February t o the Alabama Court court, court we transferred i t falls within transferred claim, that the t r i a l Rule t o o u r supreme and the court, 3, court supreme pursuant (but p o o r l y and w i t h o u t of authority to citation regarding summary court erred i n entering the defendants. argument because summary j u d g m e n t . purported on M a r c h only the merits of h i s o r i g i n a l supporting i n favor consider Sutton 12-2-7(6). appropriate judgment and transferred the appeal to i t sjurisdiction, Sutton argues that 2009, of C r i m i n a l Appeals the appeal asserting essentially judgments) 18, the appeal back to t h i s Code 1 9 7 5 , § On a p p e a l , to on The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s because Ala. motion However, a summary we cannot Sutton d i d not appeal from the I n s t e a d , he a p p e a l e d f r o m t h e d e n i a l o f h i s 60 motion. Had h i s motion been a Rule 60 m o t i o n , we c o u l d h a v e e n t e r t a i n e d o n l y a r g u m e n t s p e r t a i n i n g t o the propriety propriety denying o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g summary parte Tampling 1989). of the order Tile However, that motion judgment. and n o t t h e See, e.g., Ex C o . , 551 S o . 2 d 1 0 7 2 , 1 0 7 5 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . based on h i s r e q u e s t request f o r r e l i e f . 3 that the t r i a l court 2080718 grant relief from the summary judgment on the basis Sutton's l a c k of n o t i c e of the e n t r y of the judgment, motion was, in fact, an extension seeking Lindstrom v. Jones, 77(d) provides party claims substituted appeal."); 126, 128 Alabama the lack as a Rule 77(d), of time 603 of v. ( A l a . C i v . App. Distrib. So. 2d exclusive a method Lawrence the Co., take 960, 961 2004); So. State and 60(b) time Pers. 844, motion appeal. situations Ireland 2d C i v . P., an Rule the Sutton's See 3 ( A l a . 1992 ) ( " R u l e in and extend Alabama 719 to remedy notice, to A l a . R. of cannot within Bd., v. 845 where which 910 Piggly So. a be to 2d Wiggly (Ala. Civ. App Lawrence, and 1998). Unlike Ireland, 3 the motions Sutton's motion made was in Lindstrom, t i m e l y under Rule Rule 77(d) reads, i n p e r t i n e n t 77(d), because part: " L a c k o f n o t i c e o f t h e e n t r y by t h e c l e r k does n o t a f f e c t the time t o appeal or r e l i e v e or a u t h o r i z e the c o u r t to r e l i e v e a p a r t y f o r f a i l u r e to appeal w i t h i n t h e t i m e a l l o w e d , e x c e p t t h a t upon a s h o w i n g o f e x c u s a b l e n e g l e c t b a s e d on a f a i l u r e o f t h e p a r t y t o l e a r n o f t h e e n t r y of the judgment or o r d e r the c i r c u i t c o u r t i n any a c t i o n may e x t e n d t h e t i m e f o r a p p e a l not e x c e e d i n g t h i r t y ( 3 0 ) days from the e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n a l t i m e now p r o v i d e d f o r appeals i n c i v i l a c t i o n s . " 4 2080718 it was the filed trial motion. 77(d) for on t h e 7 1 s t d a y court See jurisdiction L i n d s t r o m , 603 motion untimely case no denied extension 77(d) leaving 2003) issues (quoting App. court on Gas Dist., court his as such, Stewart, Sutton's 539 So. affirm So. and the in 286 judgment brief v. 319 only argued an 317, matter 284, for Tucker 2d consider 2d makes in his See an present request no the courts i n Sutton and unless presented days granted 77(d) 864 will (42 i n the w i t h nothing to review. 1 9 8 8 ) ) ) . T h e r e f o r e , we denying of to appeal under Rule appeals v. days motion. denial 77(d) that a Rule each 77(d) Counties appeal Braxton which Rule the Rule trial timely properly delineated considered the court to which 77(d))" after trial us ("'An unlike 72 the pertaining Cullman-Jefferson more t h a n Ireland, a (stating motion, of the time appeal, (Ala. and Sutton's argument 2 d a t 961 In a d d i t i o n , Lawrence, Rule consider d a y s as a l l o w e d by R u l e of judgment). Lindstrom, So. to i s untimely i f " f i l e d a p p e a l , p l u s 30 entry on had of the 72-day p e r i o d d u r i n g those will be brief.'" (Ala. Civ. of the trial motion. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, concur. 5 Bryan, and Moore, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.