Danny W. Turner v. Willie Moore et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/29/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 , A l a b a m a 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, 2011 2100523 Danny W. Turner v. W i l l i e Moore e t a l . Appeal from Elmore C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-377) PER CURIAM. Danny favor W. Turner of Willie appeals Moore, from Lindsey t h e judgment e n t e r e d i n Self Smith, a n d Emmett J . 2100523 Graham ( h e r e i n a f t e r c o l l e c t i v e l y " t h e d e f e n d a n t s " ) . 1 In h i s c o m p l a i n t , T u r n e r a l l e g e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s were l i a b l e f o r v a r i o u s t o r t s because, he s a i d , t h e y i m p r o p e r l y w i t h h e l d $24 from into money deposited ("PMOD") a c c o u n t t o p a y his Prisoner Money f o r medical co-pays. on Turner Deposit asserts t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o the r e g u l a t i o n s of the Alabama Department of C o r r e c t i o n s ( " t h e DOC"), he was co-pays because, On exempt f r o m h a v i n g t o p a y the he s a y s , he i s a c h r o n i c - c a r e p a t i e n t . J a n u a r y 27, 2011, the defendants f i l e d a motion f o r a summary j u d g m e n t and a t t a c h e d s e v e r a l e x h i b i t s t o t h e m o t i o n . The next judgment day, January granting Turner's a c t i o n . the dismissal. the 28, 2011, the defendant's The t r i a l and T u r n e r a p p e a l e d on F e b r u a r y 8, i n favor opportunity motion court entered dismissing to t h e i r 2011. court erred i n entering a of the defendants to respond a c o u r t d i d not s t a t e i t s b a s i s f o r Turner contends t h a t the t r i a l judgment trial without giving motion and because him the genuine I n h i s c o m p l a i n t , T u r n e r named Moore and L i n d s e y S m i t h as d e f e n d a n t s , as w e l l as i n d i v i d u a l s named S e l f and Graham, whose f i r s t names T u r n e r s a i d were unknown t o h i m . An a t t o r n e y f o r the Alabama Department of C o r r e c t i o n s s u b m i t t e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a r a n c e on b e h a l f o f Moore, L i n d s e y S e l f S m i t h , and Graham. 1 2 2100523 issues of material fact exist judgment. Turner trial t h a t would preclude a summary A t t h e o u t s e t , t h e defendants a s s e r t t h a t , because d i d not f i l e a postjudgment motion challenging the c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o g r a n t t h e i r summary-judgment m o t i o n or c h a l l e n g i n g i t s having granted the motion b e f o r e Turner had had an o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e s p o n d , n e i t h e r i s s u e r a i s e d b y T u r n e r has been p r e s e r v e d The for appellate review. defendants c o r r e c t l y p o i n t out that " [ t ] h i s court w i l l not place a t r i a l court ' " ' i n e r r o r on m a t t e r s w h i c h t h e r e c o r d r e v e a l s i t n e i t h e r r u l e d upon n o r was p r e s e n t e d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o r u l e upon.'"' V e r n e u i l l e [v. B u c h a n a n Lumber o f M o b i l e , I n c . ] , 914 So. 2d [822,] 824 [ ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) ] (quoting J.K. v . L e e C o u n t y Dep't o f Human Res., 668 So. 2d 813, 817 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n W i l s o n v . S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . , 527 So. 2d 1322, 1324 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1988) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d i n Verneuille))." A.W., by and t h r o u g h (Ala. H o g e l a n d v. Wood, 57 So. 3d 7 5 1 , 759 2010). Because Turner never r a i s e d i n t h e t r i a l of whether t h e t r i a l without allowing defendant's opportunity court erred i n entering him the o p p o r t u n i t y motion, the trial court the issue court t o r u l e on t h a t i s s u e . to t h e judgment respond d i d not have the Thus, we a g r e e w i t h t h e defendants that the issue of the timing of the entry 3 to the of the 2100523 j u d g m e n t c a n n o t be propriety of before the before the the trial considered judgment on a p p e a l . itself, However, as t o that issue was squarely c o u r t on t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n . trial court was whether the the The defendants issue had met t h e i r b u r d e n o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h e y were e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t b a s e d upon t h e p l e a d i n g s t r i a l court. the t r i a l o r on t h e m a t e r i a l s s u b m i t t e d B e c a u s e t h a t i s s u e was considered to the and d e c i d e d c o u r t , t h i s c o u r t can c o n s i d e r t h e p r o p r i e t y o f by the judgment. In r e v i e w i n g whether the t r i a l T u r n e r ' s a c t i o n , we titled first court erred i n dismissing note t h a t , although t h e i r m o t i o n as one seeking ' [ t ] h i s Court w i l l of than motion rather m o t i o n i s t o be Procedure.'" L.L.C., 35 Brasfield So. 3d S t a t e Farm Mut. 2005)). that they The 601, seeking of a to under the Alabama R u l e s of Civil L.L.C. v. ( A l a . 2009) the 915 So. 4 of Soho (quoting 2d 557, defendants' dismissal grounds t h a t Turner's complaint determine substance that & Gorrie, 604 look at the how A u t o . I n s . Co., substance were its title, considered defendants a summary j u d g m e n t , " [ i ] t is well settled that a the Pontius 562-63 motion the Partners, v. (Ala. indicates action on f a i l e d to e s t a b l i s h that the any 2100523 act or omission of the defendants violated any of Turner's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s ; t h a t T u r n e r had f a i l e d t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon w h i c h r e l i e f c o u l d be g r a n t e d ; t h a t T u r n e r had failed to a v a i l h i m s e l f of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e remedies before b r i n g i n g t h i s a c t i o n ; t h a t t h e y were n o t p r o p e r p a r t i e s t o t h e a c t i o n ; that, to the extent they were sued c a p a c i t i e s u n d e r 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in their official as e m p l o y e e s o f t h e o f A l a b a m a , t h e y c o u l d n o t be h e l d l i a b l e f o r damages. extent they were sued in their individual State To the capacities, the d e f e n d a n t s a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e were p r o t e c t e d f r o m l i a b i l i t y the d o c t r i n e of q u a l i f i e d We court cannot determine considered the from the record e x h i b i t s attached are p r e s e n t e d then motion the for t o and a whether to R. Civ. j u d g m e n t on pleadings. (Ala. P. the See 1992).'" Otherwise, in the on the pleadings deciding trial Stockman v. E c h l i n , See a court I n c . , 604 M e d l o c k v. S a f e w a y I n s . Co. 5 trial defendants' c o n s i d e r e d by t h e t r i a l judgment pleadings, the the " ' I f matters outside t r e a t e d as a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . Ala. by immunity. m o t i o n when i t e n t e r e d t h e j u d g m e n t . pleadings and court, must Rule motion be 12(c), for i s b o u n d by So. the a the 2d 393, 394 o f A l a b a m a , 15 So. 2100523 3d 501, 507 Co. Thompson, v. ( A l a . 2009) 776 (quoting U n i v e r s a l Underwriters So. 2d p u r p o s e s o f t h i s o p i n i o n , we 81, 82-83 (Ala. 2000)). For w i l l assume t h a t t h e t r i a l court did c o n s i d e r the evidence the defendants submitted of their motion; therefore, applicable i n reviewing we will use the i n support standard t h e p r o p r i e t y o f a summary j u d g m e n t . "Summary j u d g m e n t i s a p p r o p r i a t e o n l y when ' t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e as t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t and ... t h e m o v i n g p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . ' R u l e 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., and Dobbs v. S h e l b y C o u n t y E c o n o m i c & I n d u s . Dev. A u t h . , 749 So. 2d 425 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) . The c o u r t must a c c e p t t h e t e n d e n c i e s o f t h e e v i d e n c e most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e n o n m o v i n g p a r t y and must r e s o l v e a l l reasonable doubts i n f a v o r of the nonmoving party. S y s t e m D y n a m i c s I n t ' l , I n c . v. B o y k i n , 683 So. 2d 419 ( A l a . 1996). I n r e v i e w i n g a summary j u d g m e n t , an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t , de novo, a p p l i e s t h e same s t a n d a r d as t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Dobbs, s u p r a . " Ex p a r t e Kraatz, 775 So. Ins. 2d 801, 803 ( A l a . 2000). "Once t h e movant makes a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t , the b u r d e n t h e n s h i f t s t o t h e nonmovant t o p r o d u c e ' s u b s t a n t i a l evidence' as t o t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t . B a s s v. S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f B a l d w i n C o u n t y , 538 So. 2d 794, 797-98 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; A l a . Code 1975, § 12-21-12. '[S]ubstantial e v i d e n c e i s e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d persons i n the e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . ' West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e Assur. Co. o f F l a . , 547 So. 2d 870, 871 (Ala. 1989)." 6 2100523 Dow v. (Ala. Alabama Democratic 897 So. 2d 1035, 1038-39 2004). In their answer to a d m i t t e d t h a t money was for Party, co-pays visits he Correctional deducted complaint, the from Turner's t h a t they c l a i m e d Turner had made Facility Turner contended DOC The defendants while and PMOD a c c o u n t owed f o r e i g h t incarcerated two defendants at other prisons. medical the As Elmore mentioned, t h a t , b e c a u s e he i s a c h r o n i c - c a r e p a t i e n t , regulations because, Turner's exempt h i m asserted from h a v i n g t o pay that the co-pays. a summary j u d g m e n t was t h e y s a y , i n w i t h h o l d i n g t h e money T u r n e r proper allegedly owed f o r m e d i c a l c o - p a y s , T u r n e r ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s were not i n f r i n g e d . In s u p p o r t of t h e i r argument, the defendants c i t e d c a s e l a w f r o m b o t h A l a b a m a and f e d e r a l c o u r t s a p p r o v i n g DOC's p r a c t i c e o f c h a r g i n g i n m a t e s m e d i c a l c o - p a y s and t h a t s u c h c h a r g e s c o u l d be i m p o s e d w i t h o u t v i o l a t i n g constitutional rights. No. finding inmates' However, DOC A d m i n i s t r a t i v e R e g u l a t i o n 601, § I V . C . 1 . , a c o p y o f w h i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t s a t t a c h e d t o t h e i r m o t i o n , s t a t e s t h a t " i n m a t e s w i l l n o t be c h a r g e d " a c o pay f o r m e d i c a l v i s i t s other enumerated to chronic-care c l i n i c s , reasons. In 7 Board of among s e v e r a l Regents of State 2100523 C o l l e g e s v. R o t h , 408 of the United U.S. States 564, 577 (1972), discussed c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y protected property t h e Supreme C o u r t what constitutes a interest: "To have a p r o p e r t y i n t e r e s t i n a b e n e f i t , a p e r s o n c l e a r l y must have more t h a n an a b s t r a c t n e e d o r desire for i t . He must have more t h a n a u n i l a t e r a l expectation of i t . He must, i n s t e a d , have a l e g i t i m a t e c l a i m of e n t i t l e m e n t t o i t . I t i s a purpose of the a n c i e n t i n s t i t u t i o n of p r o p e r t y to p r o t e c t t h o s e c l a i m s upon w h i c h p e o p l e r e l y i n t h e i r d a i l y l i v e s , r e l i a n c e t h a t must n o t be a r b i t r a r i l y undermined. I t i s a purpose of the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o a h e a r i n g t o p r o v i d e an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a person to v i n d i c a t e those c l a i m s . " P r o p e r t y i n t e r e s t s , of course, are not c r e a t e d by t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . R a t h e r , t h e y a r e c r e a t e d and t h e i r d i m e n s i o n s a r e d e f i n e d by e x i s t i n g r u l e s o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g s t h a t s t e m f r o m an i n d e p e n d e n t s o u r c e s u c h as s t a t e l a w - - r u l e s o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g s that s e c u r e c e r t a i n b e n e f i t s and t h a t s u p p o r t c l a i m s o f e n t i t l e m e n t to those b e n e f i t s . " Therefore, the charged medical create Due a r e g u l a t i o n s t a t i n g t h a t an a property Process Clause co-pay interest under inmate w i l l not c e r t a i n circumstances entitled of the F o u r t e e n t h S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901, I, § the United Art. 6. In h i s complaint, care does t o p r o t e c t i o n under Amendment t o t h e be patient. T u r n e r a l l e g e d t h a t he Therefore, at is a a minimum, a g e n u i n e 8 chronicissue of 2100523 material facts regulations, exists the as t o whether, co-pays at issue d e d u c t e d f r o m h i s PMOD a c c o u n t . the p u r s u a n t t o DOC's here were own improperly A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e t h a t d e f e n d a n t s f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e r e was no g e n u i n e issue of material judgment as fact a matter t h e i r burden, see Dow, not Turner of shift to or they were entitled Because law. 897 to that they failed to to a meet So. 2d a t 1038-39, t h e b u r d e n d i d produce genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t , substantial evidence and t h e t r i a l of a court erred i n e n t e r i n g t h e summary j u d g m e n t . The defendants also contend that " a l l applicable t h e y were immune liability under qualified, absolute, discretionary-function, immunity. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e p l e a d i n g s s u b m i t t e d by p a r t i e s , e a c h o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s was immunities," civil a c t i o n was filed. The including and s t a t e - a g e n t a l l the an e m p l o y e e a t t h e E l m o r e C o r r e c t i o n a l F a c i l i t y , where T u r n e r was this from an i n m a t e a t t h e t i m e complaint states that each d e f e n d a n t i s b e i n g s u e d i n d i v i d u a l l y and t h a t he o r she a c t e d under did the c o l o r of law. I n o t h e r w o r d s , even though Turner n o t s t a t e t h e s p e c i f i c " t o r t " upon w h i c h he was b a s i n g h i s cause of a c t i o n , i t appears t h a t he a s s e r t e d 9 claims against 2100523 the defendants pursuant provides, in pertinent to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute part, " [ e ] v e r y p e r s o n who, u n d e r c o l o r o f any s t a t u t e , ordinance, r e g u l a t i o n , custom, or usage, of any S t a t e or T e r r i t o r y or the D i s t r i c t of Columbia, s u b j e c t s , o r c a u s e s t o be s u b j e c t e d , any c i t i z e n o f the United States or other person w i t h i n the jurisdiction thereof to the d e p r i v a t i o n of any r i g h t s , p r i v i l e g e s , o r i m m u n i t i e s s e c u r e d by the C o n s t i t u t i o n and l a w s , s h a l l be l i a b l e t o t h e p a r t y i n j u r e d i n any a c t i o n a t l a w , s u i t i n e q u i t y , o r other proper proceeding f o r redress This c o u r t r e c e n t l y addressed the a p p l i c a t i o n of immunity t o § 1983 actions. " I n W i l l v. M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t o f S t a t e P o l i c e , 491 U.S. 58, 109 S. C t . 2304, 105 L.Ed. 2d 45 ( 1 9 8 9 ) , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t a s t a t e was n o t a ' p e r s o n ' s u b j e c t t o s u i t u n d e r § 1983. I d . a t 65-66. The C o u r t a l s o c o n c l u d e d t h a t a c t i o n s f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o § 1983 and asserting c l a i m s f o r damages a g a i n s t g o v e r n m e n t o f f i c i a l s or employees i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s were, i n essence, claims a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t the s t a t e i t s e l f . Thus, t h e C o u r t c o n c l u d e d , s u c h c l a i m s were no d i f f e r e n t from c l a i m s a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t the state itself. I d . a t 71. The C o u r t r e c o g n i z e d , h o w e v e r , that a state o f f i c i a l i n h i s or her official c a p a c i t y , when s u e d f o r i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f , w o u l d be a ' p e r s o n ' u n d e r § 1983 b e c a u s e " ' o f f i c i a l - c a p a c i t y a c t i o n s f o r p r o s p e c t i v e r e l i e f a r e n o t t r e a t e d as a c t i o n s a g a i n s t the S t a t e . ' " I d . a t 71 n. 10 ( q u o t i n g K e n t u c k y v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 n. 14, 105 S. C t . 3099, 87 L. Ed. 2d 114 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ) . See a l s o G r i s w o l d v. A l a b a m a Dep't o f I n d u s . R e l a t i o n s , 903 F.Supp. 1492, 1500 n. 7 (M.D. Ala. 1995) ( a p p l y i n g t h e r a t i o n a l e o f W i l l v. M i c h i g a n Dep't o f S t a t e P o l i c e , supra, t o c o n c l u d e t h a t the Alabama 10 2100523 D e p a r t m e n t o f I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s was immune f r o m suit i n f o r m e r e m p l o y e e ' s § 1983 a c t i o n ; a l s o recognizing that governmental officials or g o v e r n m e n t a l e m p l o y e e s may be s u e d i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l capacities but only f o r prospective injunctive relief). "Against the backdrop of W i l l , supra, and G r i s w o l d , s u p r a , we c o n s i d e r t h e c l a i m s a n d d e f e n s e s a s s e r t e d i n t h i s a c t i o n . W a t k i n s named t h e A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f C o r r e c t i o n s as a d e f e n d a n t i n t h i s c a s e . As r e c o g n i z e d i n G r i s w o l d , a s t a t e a g e n c y , as an arm o f t h e s t a t e , i s immune f r o m s u i t i n a § 1983 a c t i o n . Thus, t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y d i s m i s s e d Watkins's claims against the Department of Corrections. " W a t k i n s a l s o named as d e f e n d a n t s i n t h i s a c t i o n Warden M i t c h e m , C a p t a i n W a l l a c e , and L i e u t e n a n t Halbrooks. From o u r r e a d i n g o f t h e c o m p l a i n t , i t i s u n c l e a r whether Watkins i n t e n d e d t o a s s e r t c l a i m s against these defendants in their official c a p a c i t i e s , i n t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s , or both. A t t h i s s t a g e o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n , we must c o n s t r u e the complaint liberally i n favor of Watkins. M e d l o c k v . S a f e w a y I n s . Co. o f A l a b a m a , 15 So. 3d a t 507. Thus, we r e a d t h e c o m p l a i n t as a s s e r t i n g claims against the i n d i v i d u a l defendants i n both t h e i r o f f i c i a l and i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s . " I n t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' a n s w e r , t h e y s t a t e d : 'The d e f e n d a n t s named i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y p l e a d the a f f i r m a t i v e defense o f s o v e r e i g n immunity.' S o v e r e i g n immunity, a r i s i n g p u r s u a n t t o t h e Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1 9 0 1 , § 14, p r o v i d e s no p r o t e c t i o n t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s b e c a u s e ' [ s ] e c t i o n 14 i m m u n i t y h a s no a p p l i c a b i l i t y t o f e d e r a l - l a w c l a i m s . ' B e d s o l e v . C l a r k , 33 So. 3d 9, 13 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) (rejecting defendants' argument t h a t t h e y were e n t i t l e d t o a summary j u d g m e n t on p l a i n t i f f ' s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 c l a i m on t h e b a s i s o f s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i t y ) . See a l s o Ex p a r t e R u s s e l l , 31 So. 3d 694, 11 2100523 696 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) (actions seeking a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment or a c t i o n s s e e k i n g t o e n j o i n s t a t e o f f i c i a l s f r o m e n f o r c i n g an u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l a w a r e n o t s u b j e c t t o s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i t y ) . B u t see W i l l , supra ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t governmental o f f i c i a l s and g o v e r n m e n t a l e m p l o y e e s a r e s u b j e c t t o s u i t i n § 1983 a c t i o n s f o r p r o s p e c t i v e i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f ) ; and G r i s w o l d , s u p r a (same). B e c a u s e W a t k i n s ' s c o m p l a i n t a s s e r t e d o n l y f e d e r a l - l a w c l a i m s , the t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d not have p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d the individual defendants, named i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s , a j u d g m e n t on t h e p l e a d i n g s on t h e b a s i s o f s o v e r e i g n immunity. To t h e e x t e n t W a t k i n s s o u g h t m o n e t a r y damages a g a i n s t t h e i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e i r official c a p a c i t i e s , however, the t r i a l court's judgment i n f a v o r of the i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s i s a f f i r m e d because c l a i m s f o r such r e l i e f are b a r r e d u n d e r § 1983. See W i l l , s u p r a ; and G r i s w o l d , s u p r a . "The i n d i v i d u a l defendants also asserted i n their answer: 'The defendants named in their i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y p l e a d the a f f i r m a t i v e defense of q u a l i f i e d immunity.' Q u a l i f i e d immunity a p p l i e s only to governmental o f f i c i a l s and governmental e m p l o y e e s s u e d i n t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s . See F l o o d v. S t a t e o f A l a b a m a Dep't o f I n d u s . R e l a t i o n s , 948 F. Supp. 1535, 1547 (M.D. A l a . 1996) ( d i s c u s s i n g a p p l i c a t i o n of q u a l i f i e d immunity). I n Ex p a r t e Madison County Board of E d u c a t i o n , 1 So. 3d 980 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) , o u r supreme c o u r t s t a t e d : " ' " ' Q u a l i f i e d immunity i s designed to a l l o w government o f f i c i a l s t o a v o i d the expense and d i s r u p t i o n o f g o i n g t o t r i a l , and i s not merely a defense to l i a b i l i t y . ' Hardy v. Town o f H a y n e v i l l e , 50 F. Supp. 2d 1176, 1189 (M.D. A l a . 1999) . 'An o f f i c i a l i s e n t i t l e d t o q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y i f he i s p e r f o r m i n g d i s c r e t i o n a r y f u n c t i o n s and h i s actions do '"not violate clearly e s t a b l i s h e d s t a t u t o r y or constitutional r i g h t s of which a reasonable person would 12 2100523 have known.'"' H a r d y , 50 F. Supp. 2d a t 1189 ( q u o t i n g L a n c a s t e r v . Monroe C o u n t y , C ^ ^ c TTI -r/i-rn -r/io/i /-r-r-i-i-, ^ ^ ^ c\C\n \ 116 F.3d 1419, 1424 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) ) . " ' "Ex p a r t e M a d i s o n C o u n t y Bd. o f Educ., 1 So. 3d a t 990 ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Dep't o f Y o u t h S e r v s . , 880 So. 2d 393, 402 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ) . " I n H a r d y v. Town o f H a y n e v i l l e , 50 F. Supp. 2d 1176 (M.D. A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) , an i n m a t e b r o u g h t c l a i m s , p u r s u a n t t o 42 U.S.C. § 1 9 8 3 , a g a i n s t an a r r e s t i n g p o l i c e o f f i c e r , t h e c h i e f o f p o l i c e , t h e mayor, a n d t h e Town o f H a y n e v i l l e . Upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e defendants' motion t o d i s m i s s the inmate's c l a i m s , the U n i t e d States D i s t r i c t Court f o r the Middle D i s t r i c t o f Alabama d i s c u s s e d a t l e n g t h t h e l a w a p p l i c a b l e t o the a f f i r m a t i v e defense of q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y . The c o u r t s t a t e d : " ' [ T h e ] D e f e n d a n t s ... have a s s e r t e d the defense o f q u a l i f i e d immunity i n a Rule 12(b)(6) motion t o d i s m i s s , and t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d t o q u a l i f i e d immunity a t t h i s stage in the proceedings i f the P l a i n t i f f s [ ' ] complaint f a i l s to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Santamorena v. G e o r g i a M i l i t a r y C o l l e g e , 147 F.3d 1337, 1340 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) . To overcome t h i s immunity, a p l a i n t i f f has t h e burden o f " p o i n t i n g t o case law which p r e d a t e s the official's alleged improper conduct, involves materially similar f a c t s , and truly compels the conclusion that the p l a i n t i f f had a r i g h t under f e d e r a l l a w . " Id. When c o n s i d e r i n g w h e t h e r t h e l a w applicable to certain facts i s clearly e s t a b l i s h e d , t h e f a c t s o f t h e case need n o t be t h e same, b u t must be materially s i m i l a r . I d . a t 1339. O n l y i n e x c e p t i o n a l c a s e s a r e t h e words o f a f e d e r a l s t a t u t e o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s p e c i f i c enough, 13 2100523 or the g e n e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r u l e a l r e a d y i d e n t i f i e d i n d e c i s i o n a l l a w so clearly a p p l i c a b l e , so t h a t s p e c i f i c c a s e l a w i s n o t r e q u i r e d . See i d . a t 1339 n. 6. " I f c a s e l a w , i n f a c t u a l t e r m s , has n o t s t a k e d out a bright line, qualified immunity almost always p r o t e c t s the defendant." L a s s i t e r v. A l a b a m a A & M U n i v . , Bd. o f T r u s t e e s , 28 F.3d 1146, 1150 (11th C i r . 1994) ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n s and citations omitted).' "50 F. Supp. 2d a t 1189-90. B e c a u s e i n r e s p o n s e t o the i n d i v i d u a l defendants' motions to d i s m i s s the inmate i n Hardy f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e the necessary caselaw, the d i s t r i c t c o u r t granted the motions to dismiss as to the defendants sued in their i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s . I d . a t 1190. "Upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e c l a i m s a s s e r t e d i n W a t k i n s ' s c o m p l a i n t and t h e d e f e n s e s a s s e r t e d i n t h e defendants' answer, the trial court entered a judgment i n f a v o r of the d e f e n d a n t s . Because the t r i a l c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d o n l y t h o s e two p l e a d i n g s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d n o t have p o s s i b l y c o n s i d e r e d any r e s p o n s e f i l e d by W a t k i n s t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' claim of q u a l i f i e d immunity. Thus, t h e t r i a l c o u r t has not a f f o r d e d Watkins the o p p o r t u n i t y t o rebut the defendants' claim that they were entitled to q u a l i f i e d immunity. To t h e e x t e n t t h e t r i a l c o u r t entered a judgment i n f a v o r of the individual d e f e n d a n t s on t h e b a s i s o f t h a t a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e , t h a t j u d g m e n t was p r e m a t u r e l y entered." Watkins v. Mitchem, 50 So. 3d 485, 489-91 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). In h i s complaint, Smith, and Graham T u r n e r s t a t e d t h a t he was in their individual 14 s u i n g Moore, capacities. As 2100523 explained i n Watkins, governmental their officials individual supra, t h e immunity and governmental capacities i s qualified applicable employees immunity. " ' " Q u a l i f i e d immunity p r o t e c t s government officials performing discretionary f u n c t i o n s from s u i t s i n t h e i r individual c a p a c i t i e s unless t h e i r conduct violates 'clearly established statutory or c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s o f which a reasonable p e r s o n w o u l d have known.'" D a l r y m p l e v. Reno, 334 F . 3 d 991, 994 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2003) ( q u o t i n g Hope v . P e l z e r , 536 U.S. 730, 739, 122 S . C t . 2508, 153 L. E d . 2d 666 (2002) ( q u o t i n g Harlow v. F i t z g e r a l d , 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L. E d . 2 d 396 ( 1 9 8 2 ) ) ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 541 U.S. 935, 124 S.Ct. 1655, 158 L. E d . 2 d 355 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ; s e e a l s o L e e v. F e r r a r o , 284 F.3d 1188, 1194 (11th C i r . 2002) ( r u l i n g t h a t qualified immunity " p r o t e c t [ s ] from s u i t ' a l l b u t t h e p l a i n l y i n c o m p e t e n t o r one who i s k n o w i n g l y violating the federal law'" (quoting W i l l i n g h a m v. L o u g h n a n , 261 F.3d 1178, 1187 (11th C i r . 2001))). When a g o v e r n m e n t o f f i c i a l s e e k s summary j u d g m e n t b a s e d on q u a l i f i e d immunity, c o u r t s a p p l y a two-step test to determine whether qualified immunity i s a p p r o p r i a t e . F i r s t , "[a] c o u r t required to rule upon the qualified immunity i s s u e must c o n s i d e r ... t h i s t h r e s h o l d q u e s t i o n : Taken i n t h e l i g h t most favorable t o the party asserting the injury, do t h e f a c t s a l l e g e d show t h e o f f i c e r ' s conduct v i o l a t e d a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l right?" S a u c i e r v. K a t z , 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S . C t . 2 1 5 1 , 150 L. E d . 2 d 272 ( 2 0 0 1 ) . When a c o u r t a n s w e r s t h i s q u e s t i o n affirmatively, t h e c o u r t moves t o t h e second s t e p , which i s t o c o n s i d e r whether 15 to sued i n 2100523 the constitutional right was "clearly e s t a b l i s h e d " on t h e d a t e o f t h e v i o l a t i o n . Id. ' " A n d u j a r v . R o d r i g u e z , 486 F . 3 d 1199, 1202-03 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2007)." Bedsole v. C l a r k , 33 So. 3d 9, 13 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . As p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d , i f T u r n e r p r o v e s t h a t he was exempt f r o m having t o make t h e c o - p a y s , protected property interest PMOD a c c o u n t . t h e n he h a s a constitutionally t o t h e money w i t h d r a w n The DOC r e g u l a t i o n from h i s t h a t was i n e f f e c t at the t i m e t h e d e f e n d a n t s a l l e g e d l y w i t h h e l d t h e money a t i s s u e , a copy o f which t h e d e f e n d a n t s s u b m i t t e d t o t h e t r i a l support of t h e i r motion inmates will f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , s t a t e s n o t be c h a r g e d chronic-care clinics. court i n a m e d i c a l co-pay Therefore, that for visits to i f Turner i s able t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t he was a c h r o n i c - c a r e p a t i e n t a t t h e t i m e t h e money was w i t h h e l d f r o m h i s PMOD a c c o u n t , t h e n a g e n u i n e of material fact exists as t o whether a reasonable issue person s h o u l d have known t h a t w i t h h o l d i n g t h e money was a v i o l a t i o n of Turner's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d r i g h t s . The defendants contend that t h e summary j u d g m e n t was proper because, they say, they a r e not the p a r t i e s for initiating responsible t h e w i t h h o l d i n g o f money f r o m PMOD a c c o u n t s . 16 2100523 Their affidavits indicate c o m p l a i n e d o f , Moore was that, at the time of the a c a p t a i n at the Elmore conduct Correctional Facility ("the p r i s o n " ) and was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r o v e r s e e i n g t h e security of prison the and was prison; Smith an account clerk at the f o r PMOD a c c o u n t s a t t h e prison, i n c l u d i n g p l a c i n g h o l d s on money o r d e d u c t i n g m e d i c a l co-pays from of those responsible was accounts; and prison's business o f f i c e Graham was who the supervisor o c c a s i o n a l l y performed the Smith's d u t i e s . W h e t h e r t h e y were i n f a c t t h e p a r t i e s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the wrongful conduct question of f a c t . determine whether Based establish i n h i s complaint i s a on t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s , we cannot responsible issue. defendants t h a t he alleged the d e f e n d a n t s were, i n f a c t , f o r the conduct at The Turner also had contend that "Turner failed c h a l l e n g e d h i s m e d i c a l co-pay fees i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e p r o c e s s s e t f o r t h i n R e g u l a t i o n 601." read that c o n t e n t i o n as summary j u d g m e n t was his administrative an a r g u m e n t by proper because the defendants We that Turner f a i l e d to exhaust remedies. "'To be s u r e , A l a b a m a r e c o g n i z e s t h e d o c t r i n e of e x h a u s t i o n of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e remedies. C i t y o f H u n t s v i l l e v. S m a r t t , 409 So. 2d 1353, 1357 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) . "This 17 to 2100523 d o c t r i n e ' r e q u i r e s t h a t where a c o n t r o v e r s y is t o be initially determined by an administrative body, the courts will d e c l i n e r e l i e f u n t i l t h o s e r e m e d i e s have been e x p l o r e d a n d , i n most instances, exhausted.'" I d . (quoting F r a t e r n a l Order o f P o l i c e , S t r a w b e r r y Lodge No. 40 v. E n t r e k i n , 294 A l a . 201, 209, 314 So. 2d 663, 670 (1975)).' " P a t t e r s o n v. G l a d w i n C o r p . , 835 So. 2d 137, 141-42 (Ala. 2002). There a r e r e c o g n i z e d exceptions to that doctrine, including "'when (1) t h e q u e s t i o n r a i s e d i s one o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f a s t a t u t e , (2) t h e a c t i o n raises only questions o f l a w and n o t matters requiring administrative d i s c r e t i o n o r an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f i n d i n g o f f a c t , (3) the e x h a u s t i o n o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e remedies w o u l d be f u t i l e a n d / o r t h e a v a i l a b l e remedy i s i n a d e q u a t e , o r (4) where t h e r e i s t h e threat of i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y . ' "Ex p a r t e L a k e F o r e s t P r o p . Owners' A s s ' n , 2d 1045, 1046-47 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . " C i t y o f G r a y s v i l l e v. G l e n n , 46 So. 3d 925, 929 603 So. ( A l a . 2010). I n F r a t e r n a l O r d e r o f P o l i c e , S t r a w b e r r y Lodge No. 40 v. Entrekin, supreme 294 A l a . 201, 209, 314 So. 2d 663, 670 court approved the "exhaustion remedies" d o c t r i n e found i n United R.R., (1956), which a p p l i e s 352 U.S. 59 cognizable i n the f i r s t alone.'" Entrekin, instance 294 administrative v. W e s t e r n 210, Pacific "'where a c l a i m i s b y an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e A l a . at 18 States of (1975), our 314 So. 2d agency at 673 2100523 (quoting doctrine Western P a c i f i c "'judicial R.R., 352 U.S. interference is a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s has run at 63) . Under that withheld until the i t s course.'" Id. " ' I n H a l l v. C i t y o f D o t h a n , 539 So. 2d 286 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 8 ) , t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l Appeals discussed the purpose of the r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t p u b l i c employees exhaust a d m i n i s t r a t i v e remedies before obtaining j u d i c i a l review: "'"The e x h a u s t i o n d o c t r i n e a l l o w s an agency to fully develop technical issues and factual records within i t s particular area of expertise prior to j u d i c i a l review. The a g e n c y can thereby have the first o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o r r e c t any e r r o r s i t may have made, and further judicial action may become unnecessary." "'539 So. 2d a t 289.' " T a l t o n Telecomm. C o r p . v. C o l e m a n , 665 919 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . " So. 2d Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Dep't o f P o s t s e c o n d a r y E d u c . , 50 So. 444 ( A l a . C i v . App. 3d 439, 2009). In t h i s case, A d m i n i s t r a t i v e R e g u l a t i o n No. 601, provides: "A. 914, I n m a t e s who c o m p l a i n t h a t t h e y h a v e b e e n c h a r g e d a co-payment t h a t i s n o t a u t h o r i z e d by t h i s r e g u l a t i o n s h a l l s e n d an Inmate R e q u e s t S l i p t o t h e Warden o r his/her 19 § VII., 2100523 designee reviewed. asking that the charge be "B. The Warden o r h i s / h e r d e s i g n e e w i l l r e v i e w the complaint to ensure that the c o m p l a i n i n g inmate i n i t i a t e d t h e h e a l t h c a r e v i s i t f o r w h i c h a c o - p a y was c h a r g e d . The Warden or his/her designee will d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r an i n m a t e i s e n t i t l e d t o a w a i v e r o f t h e co-payment u n d e r t h e c r i t e r i a s e t f o r t h i n P a r a g r a p h IV/C o f this regulation. "C. U n d e r no c i r c u m s t a n c e s w i l l a Warden o r his/her designee override a medical d e t e r m i n a t i o n as t o w h e t h e r an i n m a t e ' s complaint i s a serious medical need. However, t h e Warden o r h i s / h e r d e s i g n e e may request that the administrator of the h e a l t h care u n i t r e c o n s i d e r t h i s f i n d i n g . " In h i s a f f i d a v i t , Graham, t h e b u s i n e s s manager a t t h e p r i s o n , acknowledged the t h a t Turner had sent a " r e q u e s t s l i p " t o Smith i n business o f f i c e , b u t , Graham s a i d , he r e t u r n e d t h e s l i p b e c a u s e T u r n e r h a d i n c l u d e d S m i t h ' s f i r s t name i n t h e a d d r e s s . Graham s a i d p r i s o n e r s a r e n o t a l l o w e d t o u s e e m p l o y e e s ' names, e i t h e r orally r e c e i v e a second Regulation or i n w r i t i n g . "request s l i p " No. 601 c h a l l e n g i n g t h e charged co-pay mechanism through which Graham s a i d he d i d n o t from does Turner. not provide the inmate with a hearing or e s t a b l i s h a the inmate may submit evidence i n support of h i s c o m p l a i n t ; i t o n l y s t a t e s t h a t t h e inmate 20 first shall 2100523 file a complaint w i t h t h e warden r e g a r d i n g t h e co-pay. The r e g u l a t i o n a l s o does n o t p r o v i d e a mechanism t h r o u g h w h i c h t h e inmate may appeal the warden's p r o p r i e t y o f t h e c o - p a y t o t h e DOC judge. does Furthermore, nothing to simply advance decision DOC inmate's complaint "to within fully develop i t s particular review." H a l l v. Civ. by r e v i e w i n g an the inmate's purpose of technical of complaint requiring the t h a t i s , the review a warden does n o t h i n g area the o r t o an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e - l a w e x h a u s t i o n of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e remedies, an regarding i s s u e s and to allow factual expertise prior From t h e warden or record before "his/her regarding whether constitutes a us, we So. cannot say designee" review an medical co-pay was a determination a body, exhaustion records judicial For reversed, contemplated properly controversy review of Turner's the and reasons the cause set by the so as § 1983 above, (Ala. complaint assessed by doctrine to a an of preclude complaint. forth 289 that having inmate's a d m i n i s t r a t i v e remedies, judicial as of administrative of 2d 286, the 1988). App. C i t y o f D o t h a n , 539 to of i s remanded t o t h e 21 the judgment trial court is for 2100523 further proceedings consistent with t h i s opinion. our d e c i s i o n , we e x p r e s s no o p i n i o n Turner w i l l u l t i m a t e l y p r e v a i l In reaching on t h e l i k e l i h o o d i n this a c t i o n ; we h o l d that only t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n favor of the defendants a t t h i s point i n the l i t i g a t i o n . REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , concur. Bryan, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , without 22 writing.

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.