Aloysius T. Henry v. Barry Dupree

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 04/13/2012 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 , 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 , Alabama 36104-3741 ((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, 2011-2012 2100970 A l o y s i u s T. Henry v. Barry Dupree Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CV-10-952) Court PER CURIAM. A l o y s i u s T. H e n r y , an i n m a t e i n c a r c e r a t e d i n t h e A l a b a m a c o r r e c t i o n a l system, f i l e d a complaint Court seeking, pursuant i n t h e Elmore Circuit t o 42 U.S.C. § 1983, m o n e t a r y a n d i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f a g a i n s t B a r r y D u p r e e , an o f f i c e r e m p l o y e d b y the Alabama Department of Corrections, arising from an i n c i d e n t i n w h i c h D u p r e e was a l l e g e d t o have v i o l a t e d H e n r y ' s 2100970 Eighth Amendment right t o be punishment by u s i n g e x c e s s i v e Henry had f i l e d and free from cruel and unusual f o r c e t o r e s t r a i n Henry. After a motion f o r a d e f a u l t judgment i n t h e case t h e c a s e h a d b e e n t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e Montgomery Court, Dupree alternative, filed a motion to f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . Court, a f t e r a hearing, entered D u p r e e on O c t o b e r 20, 2010. dismiss or, Circuit i n the The Montgomery Circuit a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f Henry m a i l e d a timely notice of a p p e a l on November 23, 2010 (see R u l e 4 ( c ) , A l a . R. App. P . ) , and t h e a p p e a l was d u l y docketed i n this court as c a s e no. 2100213; however, because Henry f a i l e d t o pay f o r t h e c o s t s o f preparing the c l e r k ' s record dismissed that appeal f o r lack of prosecution 2011, see overruling certificate Dupree Rule 2(a)(2)(C), Henry's as d i r e c t e d b y t h i s A l a . R. application o f judgment we on J a n u a r y 19, P., and after f o r rehearing on M a r c h (No. 2 1 0 0 2 1 3 ) , App. court, issued our 28, 2 0 1 1 . See H e n r y v. So. 3d ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) On May 18, 2 0 1 1 , H e n r y m a i l e d a second n o t i c e of appeal (table). indicating judgment court, than h i s i n t e n t to appeal t o t h e Alabama c o r r e c t l y noting criminal, Court from t h e October Appeals. That t h a t H e n r y ' s c l a i m was c i v i l , rather i n nature, of Criminal 20, 2 0 1 0 , transferred 2 the appeal t o our 2100970 supreme c o u r t , w h i c h i n turn transferred c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, Although the parties have the appeal to § 12-2-7(6). filed briefs a d d r e s s i n g t h e m e r i t s o f t h e O c t o b e r 20, 2010, not reach those arguments r e v i e w t h a t judgment. has been in effect because Rule since we 4(a)(1), 1975, this in this appeal A l a . R. do jurisdiction lack j u d g m e n t , we to App. provides that, P., with which certain e x c e p t i o n s n o t h e r e p e r t i n e n t , i n a l l c a s e s i n w h i c h an a p p e a l i s p e r m i t t e d by l a w as o f r i g h t t o notice trial of of appeal ... shall c o u r t w i t h i n 42 d a y s the review of a the l a s t final day f o r him a p p e a l i n t h i s c a s e was Ala. filed R. App. an i n m a t e judgment of the on filed October 20, a notice of Although Rule 4 ( c ) , P., p r o v i d e s t h a t a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l on b e h a l f o f b e f o r e the l a s t had entered confined i n a penal i n s t i t u t i o n day after and p r o c e e d i n g p r o as o f t h e d a t e o f i t s m a i l i n g i f i t on or f o r f i l i n g , Henry's n o t i c e of appeal to of C r i m i n a l well clerk Because Henry i s t o have t i m e l y i s d e p o s i t e d i n the i n s t i t u t i o n ' s 2011, from." December 1, 2010. se s h a l l be deemed f i l e d the Court w i t h the "the (6 weeks) o f t h e d a t e o f t h e e n t r y judgment o r o r d e r a p p e a l e d seeking 2010, be an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t , Appeals was i n t e r n a l m a i l system not m a i l e d u n t i l the d e a d l i n e f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e passed. 3 of May 18, appeal 2100970 In (Civ. Wilson v. W i l s o n , App. 1 9 7 3 ) , Rules of a case Appellate p r o p r i e t y of a second 53 A l a . App. 194, 298 So. 2d 616 decided before the adoption of the Procedure, this court considered the a p p e a l from a p a r t i c u l a r judgment t h a t had b e e n t a k e n a f t e r t h e d i s m i s s a l o f an i n i t i a l a p p e a l that same j u d g m e n t . In Wilson, from t h e p e r t i n e n t j u d g m e n t was l a s t amended on A u g u s t 15, 1 9 7 2 ; t h e f i r s t a p p e a l was f i l e d on S e p t e m b e r 15, 1972, b u t was d i s m i s s e d appeal from the October 20, (as was H e n r y ' s 2010, j u d g m e n t ) first f o r lack of p r o s e c u t i o n , a f t e r w h i c h a s e c o n d a p p e a l was f i l e d on F e b r u a r y 13, 1973. C i t i n g FDIC v. E q u i t a b l e L i f e A s s u r a n c e t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , 289 A l a . 192, 266 So. 2d 752 Society of (1972), f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t "where an a p p e a l h a s b e e n d i s m i s s e d f o r t h e f a i l u r e t o p r e s e n t i t p r o p e r l y , t h e e f f e c t i s t h e same as i f no a p p e a l h a d b e e n t a k e n , " t h i s c o u r t d e n i e d t h e a p p e l l e e ' s motion t o d i s m i s s t h e second appeal had a l s o been " t a k e n appeal." a p p e a l , n o t i n g t h a t t h e second within the time a l l o w e d f o r an 53 A l a . App. a t 198, 298 So. 2d a t 619. However, a t t h e t i m e W i l s o n was d e c i d e d , a p a r t y g e n e r a l l y h a d a f u l l s i x months w i t h i n w h i c h t o a p p e a l f r o m a f i n a l j u d g m e n t . See R u l e 4, A l a . R. App. P., C o m m i t t e e Comments on 1975 A d o p t i o n . this c a s e , H e n r y h a d o n l y 42 d a y s w i t h i n w h i c h appeal from t h e October In t o p e r f e c t an 20, 2010, j u d g m e n t o f t h e Montgomery 4 2100970 C i r c u i t C o u r t ; under W i l s o n , a l t h o u g h Henry's f i r s t appeal was t i m e l y , the d i s m i s s a l of t h a t a p p e a l l e f t him i n the p o s i t i o n " a s i f no a p p e a l had b e e n t a k e n , " 53 A l a . App. 2d a t 619, Rule and h i s s e c o n d a p p e a l was 4 i n order appellate to invoke the a t 198, not t i m e l y jurisdiction P., be d i s m i s s e d i f t h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was of t h i s under state's " [ a ] n appeal therefore, due t o be d i s m i s s e d . APPEAL DISMISSED. the judges concur. 5 shall not t i m e l y f i l e d invoke the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t . " All filed So. courts. Under R u l e 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. App. is, 298 to This appeal

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.