Ex parte Alabama State Personnel Board. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Andrew L. Sutley v. Alabama Department of Public Safety)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 05/06/2011 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2100289 Ex p a r t e Alabama S t a t e P e r s o n n e l Board PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Andrew L. S u t l e y v. Alabama Department o f P u b l i c (Montgomery C i r c u i t MOORE, CV-10-1166) Judge. The A l a b a m a S t a t e this Court, Safety) court f o ra w r i t Personnel Board o f mandamus ("the SPB") p e t i t i o n s directing t h e Montgomery 2100289 Circuit Andrew from Court to vacate L. S u t l e y an below, i t s December t o a d d t h e SPB a s a p a r t y administrative we g r a n t 21, 2010, order to Sutley's appeal F o r the reasons decision. the p e t i t i o n allowing stated and i s s u e the writ. Background On J u l y 2 1 , 2 0 1 0 , t h e SPB i s s u e d decision DPS") of t h e Alabama to terminate trooper. the July filed pursuant Sutley's t o A l a . Code § 41-22-1 designated not On Circuit p e t i t i o n ; Sutley state a notice notice of appeal a part with t h e DPS. that was of the Sutley appeal; Sutley d i d filed i n the Montgomery appellee. named f o rJ u d i c i a l t h e DPS Review," pursuant as t h e respondent to § i n that t o name t h e SPB a s a p a r t y . On O c t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 0 , t h e DPS m o v e d t o d i s m i s s asserting of appeal to that 16, 2 0 1 0 , S u t l e y failed as an A l a b a m a P r o c e d u r e A c t ("the A A P A " ) , A l a . Code Court a " P e t i t i o n Sutley ("the 1975, § 41-22-20, t h e DPS a s t h e a p p e l l e e September 41-22-20. That the Safety filed e t s e q . , a n d was f i l e d name t h e SPB a s a n upholding of Public employment 21, 2010, order. Alabama A d m i n i s t r a t i v e 1975, Department On A u g u s t 1 9 , 2 0 1 0 , S u t l e y from an o r d e r the action, i t had n o t been t h e agency r e s p o n s i b l e 2 f o r the 2100289 ultimate decision opposed before that the respondent motion on shown t h e State the trial to and, his Sutley's at court, a 7, moved add the to trial that court that, order S y s t e m on was the SPB s t a t u t o r y time l i m i t a t i o n s set forth order was ordering expired entered, the the to administrative SPB trial be appeal. a clear legal by the court added SPB to have granted "for good entered asserts a December because 21, the t h a t , as December 21, to § 2010, Sutley's a result, 2010, Review "'"Mandamus is a drastic and e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t , t o be i s s u e d o n l y w h e r e t h e r e i s (1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n t h e petitioner to the order s o u g h t ; (2) an imperative d u t y upon the respondent to p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; and (4) p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c o u r t . " Ex p a r t e I n t e g o n C o r p . , 672 So. 2d 4 9 7 , 499 (Ala. 1995). 3 the 2010. that, respondent asserts of cause i n A l a . Code 1975, the a that into vacated. Standard as exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n as The right time hearing SPB December 21, i t s mandamus p e t i t i o n , had Sutley 2010, stating motion i s granted"; Information 23, The 2010, employment. November Sutley petition. December 41-22-20(d), has terminate motion, Judicial In to i t order 2100289 "Ex p a r t e L i b e r t y N a t ' l 4 7 8 , 480 (Ala. 2003)." Ex parte (Ala. Progressive 2009). means o f a case Specialty A petition seeking f o r the failure in the Nursing that AAPA. the directing hospital the the trial failed So. 31 So. 3d Co., court's pursuing e.g., 2d was Ex 45, to 48 an to the the proper dismiss for appeal Crestwood the 663 administrative ( A l a . 1995) dismiss to comply w i t h 661, r e f u s a l to parte entitled court 2d w r i t o f mandamus i s a mandatory procedures So. petitioner 888 a party of 670 Co., a trial See, Home, I n c . , Ins. Ins. f o r the r e v i e w of appeal to comply w i t h out Life set Hosp. & (recognizing requested case writ because r e q u i r e m e n t s of the the AAPA). to comply Analysis The with SPB the statutory allowed is by asserts requirements We agree Anyone a g g r i e v e d and issue by a final in a contested provided in Ala. periods case Code [administrative-agency] time because of Sutley the statute, his administrative barred. agency that, provided the AAPA w i t h i n appeal against d e c i s i o n o f an § the the the 4 SPB administrative to j u d i c i a l 41-22-20. review "Appeals d e c i s i o n s a r e p u r e l y s t a t u t o r y and by time writ. is entitled 1975, failed statute must be as from the strictly 2100289 observed. court ... other i s determined periods." 327 In State by 924 Medical (Ala. (Ala. Licensure Civ. App. App. with of of the 528 So. parte Worley, and Alabama, 709 trial statutory opinion); (plurality Comm'n these Anthony, A c c o r d Ex So. time 2d So. 3d Eitzen 2d 46 326, v. 1239, 1240 538 (Ala. 1998). In D a v i s v. A l a b a m a M e d i c a i d Civ. jurisdiction A g e n c y v. 1988). 2009) the compliance Medicaid ( A l a . C i v . App. 916, words, 1987), this court A g e n c y , 519 So. 2d stated: "'Appeals from agency decisions are purely statutory, and the time c o n s t r i c t i o n s must be satisfied. A l t h o u g h t h i s r e s u l t may seem h a r s h a t f i r s t b l u s h , our R u l e s of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e have a s i m i l a r mechanism embodied i n R u l e 59.1, A [ l a ] . R. C i v . P. A m o t i o n f o r [ a ] new t r i a l , e t c e t e r a , i s d e e m e d d e n i e d i f n o t r u l e d on w i t h i n 90 d a y s . The f a c t t h a t a c o u r t may e n t e r an o r d e r a f t e r t h e 90 d a y p e r i o d r u l i n g on t h e m o t i o n h a s no e f f e c t i n d e t e r m i n i n g the d a t e t h a t the n o t i c e of a p p e a l must be f i l e d . The o r d e r i s a m e r e n u l l i t y . O l s o n v. O l s o n , 367 So. 2d 504 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1979).'" 519 So. 2d at Section 539-40 41-22-20(b), proceedings seeking agency d e c i s i o n "with the trial Ala. Code j u d i c i a l review i n a contested agency" a c o s t bond. (quoting a Section "notice case of court's 1975, order). mandates of a f i n a l are appeal or administrative- instituted by review," along 41-22-20(d) r e q u i r e s t h a t the 5 that a l l filing with "notice of 2100289 a p p e a l o r r e v i e w " be f i l e d w i t h i n of an a g e n c y ' s judicial of 22-20(h), of the notice for respondent." the statute after In that was appeal eventually notice Sutley's f o r the review, his petition that the that agency the or to "issue days," stated i n court and a l t h o u g h appeal w i t h i n was the time 6 from which he was i n either h i s notice of review. Although he for judicial t h e SPB four order." decision and h i s p e t i t i o n motion, an t o name t h e S P B , t h e a g e n c y as a p a r t y the t r i a l as trial 30 failed Sutley SPB a s a p a r t y , granted things, authorizes of the agency of appeal other 41- times the issuance moved Section a review of the agency d e c i s i o n " " w i t h i n responsible or 30 d a y s the f i l i n g t o "an a d d i t i o n a l judicial within "name case, this seeking the up notice a "petition for court among also to extend that or review. review 41-22-20(d) cause, permitting months judicial Section f o r good order of appeal A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , r e q u i r e s , petition court, a c t i o n and r e q u i r e s r e v i e w " be f i l e d i n t h e c i r c u i t the f i l i n g the final 30 d a y s o f r e c e i v i n g to allow h i m t o amend h i s for judicial the t r i a l court n o t named allowed review as t o add ultimately a party b y t h e AAPA. to 2100289 As our supreme court recognized i n Ex parte Worley, supra: "Tatum c l e a r l y d i d n o t c o m p l y w i t h t h e s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r f i l i n g an a p p e a l o f t h e P e r s o n n e l Board's decision. Although Tatum substantially complied w i t h t h e requirements o f § 41-22-20[, A l a . Code 1975,] by exhausting her administrative remedies w i t h i n t h e agency and by f i l i n g a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l , she f a i l e d t o f i l e a p e t i t i o n i n t h e c i r c u i t court as r e q u i r e d by § 41-22-20(d), [ A l a . Code 1975,] and she f a i l e d t o s t r i c t l y comply w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f § 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( h ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . I n E x p a r t e C a r l i s l e , 894 S o . 2 d 7 2 1 , 7 2 8 - 2 9 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2004 ) , t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s h e l d t h a t strict compliance with statutory procedure was necessary f o r a p a r t y t o o b t a i n review by t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t of the a c t i o n of the State Department of Revenue. Here, Tatum failed to follow the statutorily defined procedure f o r appealing f i n a l d e c i s i o n s o f t h e S t a t e P e r s o n n e l Board, and i n d o i n g so s h e w a i v e d h e r r i g h t t o j u d i c i a l r e v i e w . " Ex p a r t e Worley, Because Sutley requirements requirements 46 S o . 3 d a t 924 of § failed to (plurality strictly 41-22-20(d), we opinion). comply conclude f o rthe issuance of the requested writ met. We, therefore, trial court to vacate grant t h e SPB's p e t i t i o n i t s December P E T I T I O N GRANTED; WRIT Thompson, P . J . , and with the that the have been and d i r e c t t h e 21, 2010, o r d e r . ISSUED. Pittman, concur. 7 Bryan, and Thomas, 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.
