Garry Bearden v. Virgil H. Coker et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 6/22/12 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, 2011-2012 2110543 Garry Bearden v. V i r g i l H. Coker e t a l . Appeal from Calhoun C i r c u i t (CV-10-900418) Court On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g BRYAN, J u d g e . This April court's no-opinion 13, 2012, i s withdrawn, substituted therefor. order of affirmance i s s u e d on and t h e f o l l o w i n g o p i n i o n i s 2110543 On January supreme c o u r t 26, 2011, Garry their appealed to the f r o m a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f V i r g i l C o k e r , C a r o l y n H e n d e r s o n , and in Bearden official Jimmy O ' D e l l , capacities as members H. individually of the and Board of R e g i s t r a r s o f C a l h o u n C o u n t y ( c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d t o as "the b o a r d members"), and t h e B o a r d o f R e g i s t r a r s o f C a l h o u n C o u n t y ("the the board"). appeal until pursuant to § This court The supreme c o u r t m a i n t a i n e d i t t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal its April original affirmance, on 13, application for application for rehearing, affirmance, substitute this rehearing and April September 15, 2010, opinion, was titled Article I, "Complaint Sections 6 under and filed We affirm the his grant no-opinion and sued the order the of summary board. the board and C o n s t i t u t i o n of alleged e l e c t e d mayor o f Weaver i n 2008; t h a t , on 2 no-opinion the o r i g i n a l complaint"), which Alabama 12," a History Bearden b o a r d members. H i s c o m p l a i n t ( " t h e 2012. 2012. j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e b o a r d members and On court Bearden 27, withdraw the Procedural this decision, 2012, on to over on M a r c h 13, 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975, issued jurisdiction that he 1901, had been S e p t e m b e r 3, 2010, 2110543 he h a d r e c e i v e d a l e t t e r f r o m t h e b o a r d i n f o r m i n g had received a complaint asserting that him t h a t i t h i s domicile f o r v o t i n g p u r p o s e s s h o u l d be c h a n g e d f r o m h i s h o u s e i n Weaver t o his farmhouse complaint, i n Anniston, that i t had investigated the and t h a t h i s v o t i n g d o m i c i l e had been changed from h i s h o u s e i n Weaver t o h i s f a r m h o u s e i n A n n i s t o n ; that that change i n h i s v o t i n g d o m i c i l e w o u l d r e n d e r h i m i n e l i g i b l e t o s e r v e a s mayor o f Weaver; t h a t t h e b o a r d a n d t h e b o a r d members had changed h i s v o t i n g d o m i c i l e w r o n g f u l l y him notice a n d an o p p o r t u n i t y and w i t h o u t g i v i n g t o be h e a r d ; a n d t h a t , "under t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f A l a b a m a , A r t i c l e I , S e c t i o n s 6 a n d 12, he has a constitutionally position a s mayor protected o f Weaver." 1 liberty Based interest on t h o s e a l l e g a t i o n s , Bearden s t a t e d a c l a i m t h a t , by c h a n g i n g h i s v o t i n g w i t h o u t g i v i n g h i m n o t i c e a n d an o p p o r t u n i t y board and t h e b o a r d process guaranteed members had d e p r i v e d to the c i t i z e n s inhis domicile t o be h e a r d , t h e h i m o f t h e "due o f Alabama under the Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901, A r t i c l e I , S e c t i o n s 6 and 1 [ 2 ] . " B e a r d e n c o n c e d e s on p a g e s 2 a n d 13-14 o f h i s r e p l y b r i e f t h a t , w h i l e t h i s a p p e a l was p e n d i n g , he r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e b o a r d change h i s v o t i n g d o m i c i l e b a c k t o h i s h o u s e i n Weaver and t h a t t h e b o a r d d i d s o . 1 3 2110543 As r e l i e f , t h e o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t an attorney fee, costs, and s o u g h t c o m p e n s a t o r y damages, an order setting aside d e c i s i o n changing h i s v o t i n g d o m i c i l e . His o r i g i n a l did not allege him deprived that any of the board rights and c l a i m was board g u a r a n t e e d t o him S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n or f e d e r a l law, his the and the complaint members by the had United i t d i d not s t a t e t h a t b e i n g b r o u g h t p u r s u a n t t o 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("§ 1983") . On S e p t e m b e r 20, 2010, ("the B e a r d e n f i l e d an amended f i r s t amended c o m p l a i n t " ) . The which was titled "First C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901, Amended original a l l material respects, identical filed October 19, Complaint under 2010, the a R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , A l a . R. complaint to the o r i g i n a l board and C i v . P., the from the the t r i a l court the board 1975, and Alabama corrected but was, members motion to dismiss the subject-matter board members said, jurisdiction § 4 that because, 17-4-3, A l a . v e s t e d i n the probate c o u r t s u b j e c t - m a t t e r on unauthorized d e c i s i o n changing h i s v o t i n g d o m i c i l e ; lacked in complaint. board t h e g r o u n d s t h a t B e a r d e n ' s a c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e d an appeal complaint, A r t i c l e I , S e c t i o n s 6 and 12," a t y p o g r a p h i c a l e r r o r i n the On f i r s t amended complaint Code jurisdiction 2110543 over appeals B e a r d e n had and that immunity from already the under (3) and (1) of court an appeal board Article (2) Eleventh with domiciles the probate members were I, the voting § 14, of doctrine Amendment to the entitled the of entered an i m m u n i t y . On order an Bearden to exhibit. In his 1983 response, v o t i n g d o m i c i l e . Rather, action d e p r i v i n g him against of due the file (5) the a 2010. Bearden f i l e d a w r i t t e n response to Bearden a c t i o n d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e an a p p e a l his States 2010, t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s w i t h an a f f i d a v i t s i g n e d by him as Alabama United r e s p o n s e t o t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s by November 10, On November 10, 2010, to state-agent O c t o b e r 20, directing and court; (4) t h e d o c t r i n e o f q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y , and d o c t r i n e of j u d i c i a l trial changing the 1901, the Constitution, the filed board Constitution immunity, decisions asserted attached that from the d e c i s i o n changing B e a r d e n s a i d , h i s a c t i o n was board process. and The e x h i b i t to Bearden's response the board affidavit members attached as stated: "My name i s G a r r y B e a r d e n . I am o v e r t h e age o f 19 y e a r s and I am q u a l i f i e d t o g i v e t h i s a f f i d a v i t . My d o m i c i l e has b e e n i n t h e C i t y o f Weaver, A l a b a m a f o r my e n t i r e a d u l t l i f e . I p u r c h a s e d and have owned and o c c u p i e d f o r t h i r t y - t h r e e y e a r s t h e property l o c a t e d a t 1200 R i d g e D r i v e , Weaver, A l a b a m a 36277. 5 his a § for an 2110543 My t h r e e c h i l d r e n grew up i n t h a t h o u s e . They e a c h a t t e n d e d Weaver H i g h S c h o o l w h i l e l i v i n g i n t h a t h o u s e . I c o n t i n u e t o own and o c c u p y t h a t p r o p e r t y a t t h e p r e s e n t t i m e . I have n e v e r i n t e n d e d t o abandon t h a t p r o p e r t y as my d o m i c i l e . I have n e v e r i n t e n d e d t o l e a v e i t w i t h any i n t e n t i o n n o t t o r e t u r n t o i t . " I n a d d i t i o n , my b u s i n e s s i s l o c a t e d i n Weaver, A l a b a m a a t 207-209 E a s t R a i l r o a d S t r e e t . I a l s o have a r e s i d e n t i a l a p a r t m e n t l o c a t e d a t 209 E a s t R a i l r o a d S t r e e t w h i c h I o c c u p y f r o m t i m e t o t i m e . My e n t i r e l i f e i s i n v e s t e d i n Weaver, A l a b a m a , as I am a l s o t h e mayor o f t h a t town. I n summary, my home f o r t h i r t y - t h r e e y e a r s , my b u s i n e s s , and an a p a r t m e n t t h a t I use from time t o time are a l l l o c a t e d i n Weaver, A l a b a m a . " A p p r o x i m a t e l y o n e - h a l f m i l e from the p r o p e r t y a t 1200 R i d g e D r i v e i s a h o b b y f a r m t h a t I have p u r c h a s e d i n A n n i s t o n , A l a b a m a , a t an a d d r e s s of 6511 Weaver Road. Once my c h i l d r e n l e f t home, and due t o p r o s p e r i t y i n my b u s i n e s s , I became a b l e t o a c q u i r e a f a r m f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f i n d u l g i n g i n my h o b b y as an a m a t e u r f a r m e r . I b u i l t a house on t h i s p r o p e r t y . Sometimes I occupy t h a t house. Sometimes I o c c u p y t h e h o u s e a t 1200 R i d g e D r i v e , Weaver, Alabama. " I am i n t h e b u s i n e s s o f b u i l d i n g and r e m o d e l i n g s t o r e s throughout the southeastern U n i t e d S t a t e s . I attempt t o be b a c k i n one o f my homes o r my a p a r t m e n t e a c h n i g h t , t h o u g h I am u s u a l l y a b s e n t d u r i n g t h e day u n l e s s I have d u t i e s t o p e r f o r m as mayor o f t h e C i t y o f Weaver. P e r s o n s who have commented on t h e t i m e I s p e n t a t t h i s o r t h a t h o u s e a r e p r o b a b l y unaware o f my a p a r t m e n t . I n any e v e n t , my b u s i n e s s a b s e n c e s m i g h t w e l l a p p e a r t o o t h e r s t o be an a b s e n c e f r o m one o r t h e o t h e r o f my h o u s e s . " I was accused i n 2008 d u r i n g my race f o r e l e c t i o n as mayor o f Weaver, A l a b a m a o f living s o m e p l a c e o t h e r t h a n Weaver, A l a b a m a . M r s . S h e i l a 6 2110543 F i e l d , my o p p o n e n t i n t h a t 2008 m a y o r a l e l e c t i o n , c o n s t a n t l y r a i s e d t h i s matter. The city council requested an a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s o p i n i o n on the p o i n t . I t s t a t e d t h a t t h e l o c a t i o n o f my residence was a m a t t e r o f f a c t and t h a t t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l c o u l d g i v e no o p i n i o n on where i t was l o c a t e d , b u t recommended an e l e c t i o n c o n t e s t by t h o s e who truly questioned my d o m i c i l e b e i n g i n Weaver, A l a b a m a (Copy o f o p i n i o n a t t a c h e d h e r e t o ) . However, t h e r e was no e l e c t i o n c o n t e s t f i l e d d u r i n g t h e e l e c t i o n o r a f t e r my v i c t o r y . [ 2 ] " T h e r e was no m e n t i o n o f my d o m i c i l e being l o c a t e d o u t s i d e o f Weaver, t o my k n o w l e d g e , a f t e r my election as M a y o r o f Weaver, A l a b a m a u n t i l I q u a l i f i e d t o run f o r the Alabama S t a t e L e g i s l a t u r e a g a i n s t the Republican establishment choice and l o n g t i m e c o u n t y c o m m i s s i o n e r and l e g i s l a t o r , Randy Wood. Once i t a p p e a r e d t h a t I was r u n n i n g e v e n w i t h o r a h e a d o f Mr. Wood i n t h a t e l e c t i o n , t h e n t h e d o m i c i l e i s s u e was once a g a i n r a i s e d by my p o l i t i c a l opponents. " I r e c e i v e d a l e t t e r from the Calhoun County B o a r d o f R e g i s t r a r s s t a t i n g t h a t i t had r e c e i v e d a c o m p l a i n t a b o u t my d o m i c i l e b e i n g l o c a t e d o u t s i d e o f Weaver, A l a b a m a , had i n v e s t i g a t e d t h a t complaint, and had d e c i d e d t o change my d o m i c i l e t o a p l a c e o u t s i d e o f Weaver. I had a b s o l u t e l y no n o t i c e and no o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e s o - c a l l e d c o m p l a i n t , i n v e s t i g a t i o n , o r d e c i s i o n . I do n o t know who made t h e c o m p l a i n t o r what was c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e b o a r d i n r e a c h i n g i t s d e c i s i o n . I do know t h a t none of my family, i n c l u d i n g me, was i n any way consulted, questioned, or allowed t o make any s t a t e m e n t w i t h r e g a r d t o where our home i s l o c a t e d . " On December 3, 2010, the The a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s Bearden's a f f i d a v i t . board opinion 2 7 and is the not board members attached to 2110543 filed an amended m o t i o n additional On argument December 21, in to dismiss support 2010, of Bearden i n which they presented t h e i r immunity defenses. filed a second c o m p l a i n t , w h i c h a d d e d a c l a i m p u r s u a n t t o § 1983. amended That claim stated: " P l a i n t i f f a v e r s t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t s have v i o l a t e d his due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States C o n s t i t u t i o n and b r i n g s t h i s a c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o 42 U.S.C. § 1983. P l a i n t i f f c l a i m s of the Defendants c o m p e n s a t o r y damages, a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s and c o s t s . " ( E m p h a s i s added.) Following a hearing, t h e t r i a l c o u r t , on J a n u a r y 5, e n t e r e d a judgment s t a t i n g : "The P l a i n t i f f has f i l e d t h i s a c t i o n a s s e r t i n g an a c t i o n u n d e r 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Plaintiff a l l e g e s t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t s have d e p r i v e d him o f h i s r i g h t t o v o t e i n t h e C i t y o f Weaver w i t h o u t due p r o c e s s o f law. The P l a i n t i f f has s e t f o r t h i n h i s b r i e f i n response to the Defendants' Motion to D i s m i s s a l l e g i n g t h a t t h i s a c t i o n i s n o t an a p p e a l . However, t h e C o u r t does n o t see how i t can be v i e w e d as a n y t h i n g b u t an a p p e a l o f t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e Board of Registrars. He has alleged that the d e c i s i o n o f t h e B o a r d o f R e g i s t r a r s i s i n c o r r e c t and i s a s k i n g t h i s Court to set aside the d e c i s i o n of the Board of R e g i s t r a r s . "The D e f e n d a n t s a l l e g e t h e y r e c e i v e d a c o m p l a i n t about P l a i n t i f f ' s p l a c e of r e s i d e n c e . They a l s o a l l e g e t h a t an i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o o k p l a c e and they c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e P l a i n t i f f l i v e d i n A n n i s t o n and n o t Weaver. As a r e s u l t o f t h i s d e c i s i o n , t h e y s e n t 8 2011, 2110543 the Plaintiff a letter on September 3, 2010 n o t i f y i n g h i m o f t h e r e s u l t s and t h e c h a n g i n g o f h i s v o t i n g r e g i s t r a t i o n to the A n n i s t o n l o c a t i o n . For clarification, the Plaintiff has not been d i s p o s s e s s e d o f h i s a b s o l u t e r i g h t t o v o t e . He s t i l l p o s s e s s e s t h e r i g h t t o v o t e , however h i s l o c a t i o n o f v o t i n g has b e e n c h a n g e . " I t i s the understanding of t h i s Court t h a t the P l a i n t i f f has f i l e d an a p p e a l o f t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e Board of R e g i s t r a r s w i t h the Judge of Probate of C a l h o u n C o u n t y as p r o v i d e d i n Code o f A l a b a m a § 17-3-55. S h o u l d t h e P l a i n t i f f be u n s u c c e s s f u l i n h i s appeal to the Probate Court, the s t a t u t e a l l o w s f o r an a p p e a l t o t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t w i t h i n a p r e s c r i b e d t i m e p e r i o d . The P l a i n t i f f has c i t e d and a r g u e d a number o f c a s e s a s s e r t i n g t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l may n o t be d e p r i v e d of a protected right without an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d . The C o u r t a g r e e s w i t h t h i s a r g u m e n t . The C o u r t a l s o b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e s t a t u t e provides the necessary 'right to be heard' p r o t e c t i o n as a r g u e d by t h e P l a i n t i f f . The s t a t u t e a s s u r e s by an a p p e a l t o C a l h o u n C o u n t y P r o b a t e C o u r t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n s r e q u i r e d by l a w . The Plaintiff i s presently exercising that right. Therefore, this Court finds no denial of due p r o c e s s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , a s s u m i n g a g a i n s t t h e argument o f t h e P l a i n t i f f ' s t h a t t h i s i s n o t an a p p e a l u n d e r § 17-3-55 t h i s C o u r t i s w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n a t t h i s time p r i o r t o a f i n a l r u l i n g from the Judge of Probate of Calhoun County. "Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss f i l e d on b e h a l f o f t h e D e f e n d a n t s i s h e r e b y GRANTED. T h i s cause i s D i s m i s s e d w i t h p r e j u d i c e w i t h c o s t s t a x e d as p a i d . " On J a n u a r y in which he 6, 2011, ( 1 ) again Bearden f i l e d a postjudgment asserted that his action was motion not an a p p e a l , ( 2 ) a g a i n a s s e r t e d t h a t Alabama law d i d not a u t h o r i z e 9 2110543 an a p p e a l f r o m a d e c i s i o n c h a n g i n g a v o t e r ' s v o t i n g (3) notified dismissed the t r i a l court was a § 1983 a c t i o n On J a n u a r y postjudgment and ( 4 ) a g a i n rather d e c i s i o n t o change h i s v o t i n g than court had motion. asserted that h i s an a p p e a l from the domicile. 10, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l supreme c o u r t , w h i c h , to t h i s the probate h i s a p p e a l on t h e g r o u n d t h a t i t was n o t w i t h i n t h e probate court's j u r i s d i c t i o n , action that domicile, Bearden then court denied timely Bearden's appealed to the as n o t e d above, t r a n s f e r r e d t h e a p p e a l c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) on M a r c h 13, 2012. Standard o f Review Bearden, standard t h e b o a r d , a n d t h e b o a r d members a s s e r t t h a t t h e o f r e v i e w t o be a p p l i e d i n t h i s c a s e i s t h e s t a n d a r d a p p l i c a b l e t o a judgment g r a n t i n g d i s m i s s . However, B e a r d e n the motion to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion t o f i l e d an a f f i d a v i t dismiss, and the trial i n opposition to court d i d not s p e c i f i c a l l y e x c l u d e t h a t a f f i d a v i t f r o m c o n s i d e r a t i o n when i t r u l e d on t h e m o t i o n . When a p l a i n t i f f trial and court the i n opposition trial court presents evidence to the t o a defendant's motion does not specifically e v i d e n c e , we must assume t h a t t h e t r i a l 10 to dismiss exclude that court considered that 2110543 evidence i n r u l i n g on t h e m o t i o n , w h i c h a u t o m a t i c a l l y c o n v e r t s the motion to d i s m i s s i n t o must r e v i e w the trial a summary-judgment m o t i o n , and court's judgment g r a n t i n g t h a t we motion u n d e r t h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w a p p l i c a b l e t o a summary j u d g m e n t . See T r a v i s v. Ziter, T r a v i s v. Z i t e r , 681 So. 2d 1348, 681 So. 2d a t 1351, 1351 ( A l a . 1996). In t h e supreme c o u r t s t a t e d : "If the court considers matters outside the p l e a d i n g s i n r u l i n g on t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , then the motion i s converted i n t o a motion f o r summary j u d g m e n t , r e g a r d l e s s o f how t h e m o t i o n was s t y l e d . R u l e 1 2 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.; Papastefan v. B & L C o n s t r . Co., 356 So. 2d 158 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) . The c i r c u i t c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g t o c o n s i d e r t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s , and t h e [ p l a i n t i f f s ] presented affidavits f r o m S t e v e T r a v i s and the c l i n i c a l p s y c h o l o g i s t who had b e e n t r e a t i n g him. B e c a u s e t h e r e was no i n d i c a t i o n d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f the hearing, or i n the c i r c u i t court's order d i s m i s s i n g the p l a i n t i f f [ s ' ] c l a i m s , t h a t the c o u r t had e x c l u d e d t h e a f f i d a v i t s , we must assume t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d them when i t r u l e d on t h e m o t i o n s . Thus, we must a n a l y z e the motions to d i s m i s s u n d e r t h e summary j u d g m e n t s t a n d a r d . Rule 1 2 ( b ) , A l a . R. The supreme Civ. court P." recited the a p p l i c a b l e t o a summary j u d g m e n t i n Dow Party, 897 So. 2d 1035, 1038-39 standard of review v. A l a b a m a D e m o c r a t i c ( A l a . 2004): " T h i s C o u r t ' s r e v i e w o f a summary j u d g m e n t i s de novo. W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e Farm Mut. A u t o . I n s . Co., 886 So. 2d 72, 74 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . We a p p l y t h e same s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w as t h e t r i a l court applied. S p e c i f i c a l l y , we must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e movant 11 2110543 has made a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t 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 e x i s t s and t h a t t h e movant 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 . Rule 5 6 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.; B l u e C r o s s & B l u e S h i e l d o f A l a b a m a v. H o d u r s k i , 899 So. 2d 949, 952-53 ( A l a . 2004). In making such a d e t e r m i n a t i o n , we must r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmovant. W i l s o n v. Brown, 496 So. 2d 756, 758 (Ala. 1 9 8 6 ) . 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 , t h e 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 e v i d e n c e ' as t o t h e e x i s t e n c e of a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l fact. Bass 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 ] u b s t a n t i a l evidence i s evidence of such weight and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n s i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can reasonably i n f e r the 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 A s s u r . Co. o f F l a . , 547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . " Analysis Although complaint, be the original complaint, the first amended and p o r t i o n s o f t h e s e c o n d amended c o m p l a i n t construed as s t a t i n g claims based on Alabama law could rather t h a n a c l a i m b a s e d on § 1983, Bearden c o n s i s t e n t l y argued the he stating a trial court Likewise, he has a § 1983 claim only. s t a t e d any by that was § 1983 claim a r g u e d i n h i s b r i e f s on a p p e a l t h a t he claim other Therefore, i n s o f a r as t h a n a § 1983 B e a r d e n may c l a i m , he has to only. stated have waived i t (1) h i s f a i l u r e t o a r g u e i t t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t , see Andrews 12 2110543 v. M e r r i t t O i l Co., 612 So. 2d 409, 410 Court cannot consider appeal; So. an arguments r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t considered by the t r i a l t o argue i t t o t h i s court, court."), t i m e on issue i n i t s brief, Bearden first the board and (2) h i s s e e B o s h e l l v. K e i t h , 418 2d 89, 92 ( A l a . 1982) ("When an a p p e l l a n t granting ("This r a t h e r , our r e v i e w i s r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e e v i d e n c e and arguments failure ( A l a . 1992) fails t o argue that issue i s waived."). argues that the trial court a n d b o a r d members' m o t i o n erred on t h e g r o u n d t h a t h i s a c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e d an a p p e a l t o t h e wrong c o u r t the decision Alabama changing h i s v o t i n g domicile l a w d i d n o t a f f o r d h i m an a p p e a l in b e c a u s e , he from says, from t h e d e c i s i o n c h a n g i n g h i s v o t i n g d o m i c i l e a n d h i s a c t i o n i s a § 1983 a c t i o n r a t h e r t h a n an a p p e a l f r o m t h a t d e c i s i o n . We Section authorizing That s t a t u t e 17-4-3, the board Ala. Code t o change 1975, a voter's agree. is the voting statute domicile. provides: "Each c o u n t y b o a r d o f r e g i s t r a r s s h a l l p u r g e t h e c o m p u t e r i z e d s t a t e w i d e v o t e r r e g i s t r a t i o n l i s t on a c o n t i n u o u s b a s i s , whenever i t r e c e i v e s and c o n f i r m s information that a person r e g i s t e r e d t o vote i n that c o u n t y h a s d i e d , become a n o n r e s i d e n t o f t h e s t a t e or county, been d e c l a r e d m e n t a l l y i n c o m p e t e n t , been c o n v i c t e d o f any o f f e n s e m e n t i o n e d i n A r t i c l e V I I I o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f A l a b a m a o f 1901 s i n c e b e i n g 13 2110543 r e g i s t e r e d , o r o t h e r w i s e become d i s q u a l i f i e d as an e l e c t o r . A person convicted of a d i s q u a l i f y i n g c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e must be n o t i f i e d b y c e r t i f i e d m a i l s e n t t o t h e v o t e r ' s l a s t known a d d r e s s o f t h e b o a r d ' s i n t e n t i o n t o s t r i k e h i s o r h e r name f r o m t h e l i s t . No p e r s o n c o n v i c t e d o f a d i s q u a l i f y i n g c r i m e may be s t r i c k e n f r o m t h e p o l l l i s t w h i l e an a p p e a l from t h e c o n v i c t i o n i s pending. "On t h e d a t e s e t i n t h e n o t i c e , o r a t a l a t e r d a t e t o w h i c h t h e c a s e may have b e e n c o n t i n u e d b y the b o a r d , t h e b o a r d s h a l l p r o c e e d t o c o n s i d e r t h e c a s e o f t h e e l e c t o r whose name i t p r o p o s e s t o s t r i k e from the registration list and make i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n . Any p e r s o n whose name i s s t r i c k e n f r o m t h e l i s t may a p p e a l f r o m t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e b o a r d w i t h o u t g i v i n g s e c u r i t y f o r c o s t s , and t h e board s h a l l f o r t h w i t h c e r t i f y the proceedings t o the j u d g e o f p r o b a t e who s h a l l d o c k e t t h e c a s e i n t h e probate court. "An a p p e a l f r o m t h e j u d g e o f p r o b a t e s h a l l be as a p p e a l s s e t f o r t h i n S e c t i o n 17-3-55. "When the board has sufficient evidence f u r n i s h e d i t t h a t a n y e l e c t o r h a s p e r m a n e n t l y moved f r o m one p r e c i n c t t o a n o t h e r w i t h i n t h e c o u n t y , i t s h a l l change t h e e l e c t o r ' s p r e c i n c t d e s i g n a t i o n i n the v o t e r r e g i s t r a t i o n l i s t , and s h a l l g i v e n o t i c e by m a i l t o t h e e l e c t o r o f t h e p r e c i n c t i n which t h e elector i s registered to vote." (Emphasis In added.) IMED C o r p . v . S y s t e m s E n g i n e e r i n g A s s o c i a t e s C o r p . , 602 So. 2d 344, 346 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) , t h e supreme c o u r t s t a t e d : "The f u n d a m e n t a l r u l e o f s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t o a s c e r t a i n and g i v e e f f e c t t o t h e i n t e n t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n e n a c t i n g t h e s t a t u t e . Words u s e d i n a s t a t u t e must be g i v e n t h e i r n a t u r a l , plain, 14 2110543 o r d i n a r y , a n d commonly u n d e r s t o o d m e a n i n g , a n d where p l a i n language i s used a c o u r t i s bound t o i n t e r p r e t t h a t l a n g u a g e t o mean e x a c t l y what i t s a y s . I f t h e language o f t h e s t a t u t e i s unambiguous, then t h e r e i s no room f o r j u d i c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d t h e c l e a r l y e x p r e s s e d i n t e n t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e must be g i v e n e f f e c t . T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y Comm'n v . D e p u t y S h e r i f f s ' A s s ' n o f T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y , 589 So. 2d 687 ( A l a . 1991)." The it plain l a n g u a g e o f § 17-4-3 i n d i c a t e s t h a t , a u t h o r i z e s an a p p e a l although t o t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t from a d e c i s i o n s t r i k i n g a v o t e r ' s name f r o m t h e l i s t o f r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s , i t does not authorize an appeal from a decision changing a v o t e r ' s v o t i n g d o m i c i l e . B e c a u s e § 17-4-3 d o e s n o t a u t h o r i z e an a p p e a l to from a d e c i s i o n changing a v o t e r ' s v o t i n g the probate appeal court from domicile c o u r t , B e a r d e n ' s a c t i o n c a n n o t c o n s t i t u t e an that d e c i s i o n t o t h e wrong court as t h e t r i a l concluded. Although erroneous, the t r i a l this court, here, will affirm legal ground presented c o u r t ' s r a t i o n a l e f o r i t s judgment i s subject the t r i a l to exceptions court's by t h e r e c o r d , t h a t g r o u n d was c o n s i d e r e d , judgment not applicable on any regardless valid of whether o r e v e n i f i t was r e j e c t e d , b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t . See G e n e r a l M o t o r s C o r p . v . S t o k e s C h e v r o l e t , 885 So. 2d 119, 124 (Ala. 2003). 15 Therefore, we will consider 2110543 whether the summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r b o a r d members i s due presented by the S e c t i o n 1983 of the board and t o be a f f i r m e d on any v a l i d l e g a l the ground record. provides: " 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 , or immunities 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 an 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 " ( E m p h a s i s added.) I n G a r n e r v. M c C a l l , 235 (1938), the registrars supreme i s an v. M i t c h e m , 50 So. court court A l a . 187, held that 189, a independent agency of the 3d 485, 489-90 178 So. county 210, 212 board of s t a t e . In Watkins ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010), stated: " 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.Ct. 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 that actions f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o § 1983 and a s s e r t i n g 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 o r e m p l o y e e s 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 e s s e n c e , c l a i m s a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t t h e 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 f r o m c l a i m s a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t t h e s t a t e i t s e l f . I d . a t 71. The 16 this 2110543 C o u r t r e c o g n i z e d , however, t h a t a s t a t e o f f i c i a l i n his or her o f f i c i a l capacity, when sued 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 because ' " 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 relief a r e n o t t r e a t e d as a c t i o n s against the State."' 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. A l a . 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 , s u p r a , t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e Alabama Department 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 s u i t 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 r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t g o v e r n m e n t a l o f f i c i a l s o r 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)." Accordingly, because t h e b o a r d i s a s t a t e agency and t h e b o a r d members a r e s t a t e employees, the board and t h e b o a r d members 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 r e n o t " p e r s o n s " t o a § 1983 c l a i m s e e k i n g of State supra. and be t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r t h e b o a r d members i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l affirmed § against be damages. See W i l l v . M i c h i g a n Dep't P o l i c e , 491 U.S. 58 ( 1 9 8 9 ) , a n d W a t k i n s v. M i t c h e m , Therefore, A of the board c a p a c i t i e s i s due t o i n s o f a r as B e a r d e n s o u g h t damages. 1983 c l a i m seeking prospective t h e b o a r d members i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l a cognizable does subject not state claim. that he injunctive c a p a c i t i e s would I d . However, B e a r d e n ' s i s seeking 17 relief § 1983 prospective claim injunctive 2110543 relief; i t states that compensatory damages, Moreover, d i d not seeking prospective should be consider So. he 2d denied "claims attorney's argue to on that 1013 an argument against and Defendants court relief ground. ( A l a . 2000) the trial the injunctive of fees and costs" that that See ("[T]he he was motion we cannot Ex p a r t e R y a l s , appellate court j u d g m e n t o n l y t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l contains the t r i a l motion for judgment in c o u r t r e c o r d p r e s e n t i n g t h a t argument court before summary favor c a p a c i t i e s i s due the t o be been s e e k i n g p r o s p e c t i v e p a r t y i n a § 1983 because board the board Therefore, members in injunctive 1988") p r o v i d e s a c t i o n may recover insofar injunctive relief, as official Bearden the the summary their official have relief. ("§ their in of a f f i r m e d i n s o f a r as B e a r d e n may t h a t the attorney summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r members affirmed or at the time of submission judgment."). of 42 U.S.C. § 1988 of can summary to validity 773 a m a t e r i a l from the t r i a l the only. the Consequently, s u c h an argument on a p p e a l . 1011, consider he of the capacities sought damages prevailing f e e s . However, board is or due and to be prospective B e a r d e n c a n n o t be a p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y as 18 the to 2110543 his c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e b o a r d and official capacities. t h e b o a r d members i n t h e i r Therefore, Bearden cannot recover a t t o r n e y f e e s f r o m t h e b o a r d and t h e b o a r d members i n t h e i r official (1985) go c a p a c i t i e s , see K e n t u c k y v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 ( " [ L ] i a b i l i t y on t h e m e r i t s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r f e e s hand i n h a n d ; where a defendant has not been prevailed a g a i n s t , e i t h e r b e c a u s e o f l e g a l i m m u n i t y o r on t h e m e r i t s , § 1988 does n o t a u t h o r i z e a f e e award a g a i n s t t h a t d e f e n d a n t . " ) , and t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e b o a r d and t h e b o a r d members i n t h e i r official capacities t o be affirmed board members c o u r t t h a t t h e y were j u d i c i a l officers i n s o f a r as he s o u g h t a t t o r n e y In their individual a s s e r t e d i n the t r i a l on t h e g r o u n d , provides: judicially fees. capacities, among o t h e r s , "Registrars i s due are the t h a t § 17-3-6, A l a . Code judicial i n a l l matters p e r t a i n i n g officers and 1975, shall to the r e g i s t r a t i o n act of a p p l i c a n t s . " F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e y a r g u e d t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e y were judicial Bearden's officers, § 1983 the d o c t r i n e claim against of j u d i c i a l them in immunity their barred individual c a p a c i t i e s . Bearden a r g u e s t h a t § 17-3-6 does n o t c o n f e r t h e s t a t u s of j u d i c i a l o f f i c e r s on r e g i s t r a r s when t h e y change a 19 2110543 voter's voting domicile b e c a u s e , he s a y s , § 17-3-6 provides t h a t r e g i s t r a r s a c t j u d i c i a l l y o n l y when t h e y a c t on a v o t e r ' s initial they a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n a n d does n o t p r o v i d e act judicially when concerning that voter's they take as j u d i c i a l initial officers only to provide when they action that r e g i s t r a r s a c t on a voter's a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n , i t w o u l d have e n a c t e d a statute s t a t i n g : "Registrars are j u d i c i a l they subsequent r e g i s t r a t i o n . However, i f , as B e a r d e n contends, the l e g i s l a t u r e intended act any that a c t on an initial application o f f i c e r s only when f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n as a v o t e r . " The l e g i s l a t u r e d i d n o t e n a c t s u c h a s t a t u t e . R a t h e r , the legislature indicating judicial that enacted i t intended officers registrars. a when statute to provide performing Changing a v o t e r ' s containing that language r e g i s t r a r s are any o f t h e f u n c t i o n s voting domicile o f r e g i s t r a r s . See 17-4-3. A c c o r d i n g l y , of i s a function we c o n c l u d e t h a t , b y v i r t u e o f § 17-3-6, t h e b o a r d members were a c t i n g a s j u d i c i a l o f f i c e r s when t h e y c h a n g e d B e a r d e n ' s v o t i n g domicile. B e a r d e n a l s o a r g u e s t h a t , e v e n i f t h e b o a r d members were acting as judicial officers when d o m i c i l e , t h e y do n o t have j u d i c i a l 20 they changed h i s voting immunity u n l e s s t h e y were 2110543 acting i n good f a i t h when t h e y c h a n g e d h i s v o t i n g domicile. B e a r d e n f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t he a l l e g e d i n h i s p l e a d i n g s t h e b o a r d members were a c t i n g i n b a d f a i t h when t h e y his voting domicile and, t h e r e f o r e , that the t r i a l that changed c o u r t was r e q u i r e d t o assume t h a t t h a t a l l e g a t i o n was t r u e f o r p u r p o s e s o f r u l i n g on t h e b o a r d members' m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s . However, as discussed above, Bearden's f i l i n g h i s a f f i d a v i t i n opposition to the motion t o dismiss a u t o m a t i c a l l y converted the motion t o dismiss into Ziter, supra. good f a i t h . a motion f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . See T r a v i s v . A judicial officer See B a h a k e l v . T a t e , 1 9 8 7 ) . When a j u d i c i a l based on i s p r e s u m e d t o have a c t e d i n judicial officer immunity, 503 So. 2d 837, 839 moves f o r a summary j u d g m e n t t h e nonmovant must rebut the p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e j u d i c i a l o f f i c e r a c t e d i n good f a i t h evidence faith. indicating that the j u d i c i a l I d . Bearden d i d not t e s t i f y b o a r d members h a d a c t e d domicile. (Ala. officer acted i n his affidavit i n bad f a i t h with i n bad that the i n changing h i s v o t i n g R a t h e r , he t e s t i f i e d : " I do n o t know who made t h e c o m p l a i n t o r what was c o n s i d e r e d by t h e b o a r d i n r e a c h i n g i t s decision." Consequently, Bearden failed to p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e b o a r d members h a d a c t e d 21 overcome i n good the faith. 2110543 Judicial as the 547, officers claimants 553-55 are immune f r o m § 1983 s e e k damages. See (1967). Therefore, the Ray v. claims insofar Pierson, 386 U.S. summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e b o a r d members 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 i s due be a f f i r m e d i n s o f a r as B e a r d e n s o u g h t damages. Judicial officers i n s o f a r as t h e See to Pulliam are claimants v. injunctive relief immune from seek p r o s p e c t i v e Allen, conclude that j u d i c i a l not 466 U.S. 522, a judicial 1983 claims injunctive relief. 541-42 immunity i s not against § a bar officer (1984) to prospective acting in judicial c a p a c i t y . " ) . However, as d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , we consider the argument t h a t Bearden was ("We seeking her cannot prospective i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f and t h a t t h e m o t i o n s h o u l d have be d e n i e d t h a t g r o u n d . See Ex p a r t e R y a l s , s u p r a . T h e r e f o r e , judgment i n favor c a p a c i t i e s i s due of the t o be been s e e k i n g p r o s p e c t i v e As on t h e summary b o a r d members i n t h e i r individual a f f i r m e d i n s o f a r as B e a r d e n may have injunctive relief. n o t e d a b o v e , § 1988 authorizes a prevailing party i n a § 1983 a c t i o n t o r e c o v e r a t t o r n e y f e e s . However, b e c a u s e t h e summary judgment individual in favor of the c a p a c i t i e s must be affirmed 22 board members i n s o f a r as in their Bearden 2110543 sought damages cannot be or prospective a prevailing party K e n t u c k y v. Graham, s u p r a . the injunctive f o r purposes relief, of § Bearden 1988. See A c c o r d i n g l y , we must a l s o summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e b o a r d members affirm i n their i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s i n s o f a r as Bearden sought a t t o r n e y f e e s . Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, we a f f i r m t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e b o a r d members a n d t h e b o a r d . APPLICATION FOR REHEARING GRANTED; NO-OPINION ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE OF A P R I L 13, 2012, WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and Pittman, 23 Thomas, a n d 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.