Amos Charles Evatt v. Kim Thomas, in his official capacity as commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/22/2012 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 Reporter o f Decisions, 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 2110553 Amos Charles Evatt v. Kim Thomas, i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y as commissioner o f the Alabama Department o f C o r r e c t i o n s Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CV-11-1128) Court PER CURIAM. Amos C h a r l e s Evatt, an i n m a t e a t t h e H a m i l t o n A g e d a n d I n f i r m e d C e n t e r ("HAIC"), a p p e a l s his complaint from t h e judgment d i s m i s s i n g f o r d e c l a r a t o r y and i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f . 2110553 In h i s c o m p l a i n t , E v a t t s u e d K i m Thomas, i n h i s capacity as t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r Corrections o f t h e Alabama ("ADOC"), a l l e g i n g official Department o f t h a t two ADOC a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e g u l a t i o n s a r e d i s c r i m i n a t o r y and t h a t t h e i r enforcement i s a r b i t r a r y and c a p r i c i o u s , deprived of h i s right a n d , t h e r e f o r e , E v a t t s a i d , he was t o equal protection. Specifically, E v a t t c h a l l e n g e d ADOC A d m i n . R e g . No. 009, w h i c h i m p l e m e n t s a "smoke/tobacco f r e e p o l i c y " b u t , e n f o r c e d a t a l l ADOC according t o Evatt, i s not facilities. E v a t t a s s e r t e d t h a t , i n p r o h i b i t i n g t h e use and s a l e o f tobacco products, "bribery, the t h e w a r d e n a t HAIC h a s o p e n e d t h e d o o r t o extortion, acquisition and d e v i a t e of cigarettes sexual behavior" involving and chewing tobacco. i n m a t e s have r e s o r t e d t o i l l e g a l behavior to obtain Because tobacco products, Evatt surmises, e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e p o l i c y i s "most likely" a f f e c t on some o f t h o s e p r i s o n e r s ' having an a d v e r s e chances of being p a r o l e d or of being allowed t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n work-release programs. As a r e s u l t , E v a t t s a i d , " t h e men a t [ H A I C ] are n o t b e i n g t r e a t e d f a i r l y as other inmates a t o t h e r facilities. Especially, the treatment 2 i sdifferently [ s i c ] 2110553 t h a n t h e women p r i s o n s whom [ s i c ] h a s a c c e s s [ t o ] t h e s a l e s o f [tobacco] products." E v a t t a l s o c h a l l e n g e d ADOC A d m i n . R e g . No. 452. information A d m i n . Reg. to provided i n h i s complaint, i t a p p e a r s t h a t ADOC No. 452 e s t a b l i s h e s t h e c r i t e r i a i n m a t e s must meet be e l i g i b l e to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the supervised program, which prepares society as t h e y near complaint, violated From t h e Evatt selected the end o f t h e i r alleged h i s right inmates that t o equal female inmates a r e e l i g i b l e ADOC re-entry f o rre-entry sentences. Admin. protection into In h i s R e g . No. 452 because, he s a i d , t o take p a r t i n t h e p r o g r a m when t h e y a r e 18 months f r o m t h e e n d o f t h e i r s e n t e n c e s , b u t male i n m a t e s a r e n o t e l i g i b l e t o p a r t i c i p a t e u n t i l t h e y a r e o n l y 12 months f r o m t h e e n d o f t h e i r Thomas filed a motion a s s e r t i n g that the complaint it failed sentences. to dismiss Evatt's was due t o be d i s m i s s e d as a matter o f l a w ; because i t f a i l e d action, because to allege a bona f i d e c o n t r o v e r s y ; b e c a u s e i t was f o r b i d d e n b y t h e f e d e r a l Prison Litigation immunity a p p l i e d . complaint, Reform A c t ; and because In arguing state-officer f o rthe dismissal of Evatt's Thomas d i r e c t e d a l l o f h i s a r g u m e n t s t o w a r d E v a t t ' s 3 2110553 contention t h a t ADOC A d m i n . R e g . No. 009, t h e t o b a c c o - f r e e p o l i c y , was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . arguments r e g a r d i n g The m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s made no the v i a b i l i t y of Evatt's claim regarding ADOC Admin. Reg. No. 4 5 2 , t h e r e g u l a t i o n g o v e r n i n g inmates' eligibility filed a for the supervised response, saying r e - e n t r y program. Thomas's then t o dismiss motion Evatt was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a n d s h o u l d be s t r i c k e n . On filed December by both 1, 2 0 1 1 , a f t e r parties, the t r i a l dismissing Evatt's complaint, that which the complaint relief could failed be considering court t h e documents entered a judgment c o n c l u d i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , to state granted a cause against of action Thomas. upon In the judgment, the t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t E v a t t l a c k e d s t a n d i n g t o bring this a c t i o n because, t h e t r i a l a l l e g e d an i n j u r y . Evatt "cannot court In addition, the t r i a l show t h a t he h a d n o t court stated that t h e a l l e g e d uneven ADOC's s m o k e / t o b a c c o f r e e p o l i c y enforcement o f (AR-009) i s g e n d e r a d d i n g t h a t ADOC h a d a l e g i t i m a t e i n t e r e s t e n s u r e t h a t HAIC i n m a t e s , said, based," i n attempting t o "who a r e g e n e r a l l y o l d e r , i n p o o r h e a l t h a n d / o r i n n e e d o f c h r o n i c c a r e , do n o t smoke a n d / o r a r e n o t e x p o s e d t o s e c o n d h a n d smoke." 4 B a s e d on i t s f i n d i n g s , t h e 2110553 trial c o u r t determined t h a t "the f a c t s a l l e g e d by [Evatt] a r e insufficient to rise violation." to the level o f any constitutional We n o t e t h a t , i n t h e j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l court d i d n o t a l l u d e t o E v a t t ' s a l l e g a t i o n t h a t ADOC Admin. R e g . No. 452 allowed the supervised allowed female inmates t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n pre-entry male inmates Nonetheless, i n reading trial dismissed court program to s i x months participate t h e judgment, Evatt's is final. than i t the program. in i t i s clear that the complaint disposing of both of Evatt's claims. longer in its Therefore, entirety, the judgment See S a n d e r s v . S a n d e r s , 32 So. 3 d 597, 599 ( A l a . Civ. App. 2 0 0 9 ) ("'A f i n a l j u d g m e n t i s one t h a t d i s p o s e s o f all the claims (quoting App. Heaston v. Nabors, between the parties.'" 889 So. 2 d 588, 590 ( A l a . Civ. 2004)). Evatt the filed judgment, "misconstrued" the and c o n t r o v e r s i e s a t i m e l y motion t o a l t e r , asserting that the i n t h e judgment, challenge trial court had t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a l l e n g e s he was m a k i n g t o administrative regulations at issue. that, amend, o r v a c a t e the t r i a l court Evatt pointed out "disregarded" h i s t o ADOC A d m i n . R e g . No. 452. From t h e r e c o r d , i t 5 2110553 appears that the t r i a l postjudgment motion. o p e r a t i o n o f law, Evatt Alabama appeal this on Evatt's A c c o r d i n g l y , t h a t j u d g m e n t was d e n i e d b y A l a . R. C i v . P. the d i s m i s s a l of h i s complaint of Criminal t o t h e Alabama jurisdiction. d i d not rule p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59.1, appealed Court court Appeals, Supreme O u r supreme court which Court to the transferred the based on lack of t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal t o c o u r t , p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . E v a t t argues t h a t the t r i a l court e r r e d i n d i s m i s s i n g h i s action b e c a u s e , he s a y s , b o t h ADOC Admin. R e g . No. 009 a n d ADOC Admin. R e g . No. 452 a r e u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n t h a t deny h i m e q u a l protection. stated that Evatt's complaint As m e n t i o n e d , the t r i a l was due t o be d i s m i s s e d they court because i t 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 . "'The a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w u n d e r Rule 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] i s whether, when the allegations of the c o m p l a i n t a r e v i e w e d most s t r o n g l y i n t h e pleader's favor, i t appears that the pleader could prove any set of circumstances t h a t would e n t i t l e h e r t o relief. Raley v. Citibanc of A l a b a m a / A n d a l u s i a , 474 So. 2d 640, 641 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ; H i l l v . F a l l e t t a , 589 So. 2d 746 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) . I n m a k i n g t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n , t h i s C o u r t does n o t c o n s i d e r whether the p l a i n t i f f will ultimately p r e v a i l , b u t o n l y w h e t h e r she may p o s s i b l y 6 2110553 prevail. F o n t e n o t v . B r a m l e t t , 470 So. 2 d 669, 671 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ; R i c e v . U n i t e d I n s . Co. o f A m e r i c a , 465 So. 2d 1100, 1101 ( A l a . 1984). We n o t e t h a t a R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) d i s m i s s a l i s p r o p e r o n l y when i t a p p e a r s beyond doubt t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f can prove no s e t o f f a c t s i n s u p p o r t o f t h e c l a i m t h a t would e n t i t l e the p l a i n t i f f t o r e l i e f . G a r r e t t v . Hadden, 495 So. 2d 616, 617 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ; H i l l v . K r a f t , I n c . , 496 So. 2d 768, 769 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . ' "Nance v . M a t t h e w s , 622 So. 2 d 297, 299 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) . 'A r u l i n g on a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s i s r e v i e w e d w i t h o u t a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s . ' Newman v . S a v a s , 878 So. 2 d 1147, 1148-49 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . " Downing v . H a l c y o n Oaks Homeowners A s s ' n , I n c . , [Ms. 2100663, M a r c h 2, 2012] The Equal Constitution So. 3d Protection requires s i t u a t e d people a l i k e . Ctr., , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) . Clause of t h e government City the United to treat States similarly o f C l e b u r n e v. C l e b u r n e 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985) . Living To e s t a b l i s h s u c h a c l a i m , a p r i s o n e r c a n a l l e g e t h a t "(1) 'he i s s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d o t h e r p r i s o n e r s who r e c e i v e d ' more f a v o r a b l e (2) his discriminatory treatment was t r e a t m e n t ; and based 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 i n t e r e s t s u c h as r a c e . " Ray, 279 F.3d 944, 946-47 ( 1 1 t h C i r . with on some Jones v. 2001) ( q u o t i n g Damiano v . F l o r i d a P a r o l e & P r o b a t i o n Comm'n, 785 F.2d 929, 932-33 ( 1 1 t h Cir. 1986)). Immutable c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d e t e r m i n e d s o l e l y b y 7 2110553 the accident of b i r t h gender are t y p i c a l l y Frontiero Pryor, as the basis Richardson, 411 race, origin, f o r f i n d i n g a suspect U.S. o f F l o r i d a v. U n i t e d 677 F l a . 2010). States, (1973); and class. Williams 722 F. Supp. Inmates a r e n o t a s u s p e c t c l a s s . v. W i l e y , 208 F.3d 1314, 1322-23 State national v. 240 F.3d 944, 947 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) ; M i c c o s u k e e T r i b e o f Indians (S.D. v. such 2d 1293 See Cook ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ; J a c k s o n v. Bd. o f P a r d o n s , 331 F.3d 790, 797 (11th C i r . 2003). O f f i c i a l a c t i o n w i l l n o t be h e l d u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s o l e l y because i t r e s u l t s i n a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e A r l i n g t o n H e i g h t s v. M e t r o p o l i t a n 252, 264-65 ( 1 9 7 7 ) . purpose Hous. Dev. C o r p . , 429 related to a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y protected to set forth Clause. Id. intent consequences. "'Discriminatory as volition purpose[]' or intent identifiable Feeney, 442 ... as Protection implies 'in spite group." U.S. 256, Personnel 279 at least i n part o f , ' i t s adverse Adm'r (1979) 8 of more awareness I t i m p l i e s t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n m a k e r ... not merely U.S. interest i s a v i o l a t i o n of the Equal ... a p a r t i c u l a r c o u r s e o f a c t i o n of,' V i l l a g e of An a l l e g a t i o n o f d i s c r i m i n a t o r y i n t e n t o r required than impact. selected 'because e f f e c t s upon Massachusetts (footnotes and of an v. citation 2110553 omitted); (1991). the s e e a l s o H e r n a n d e z v . New Y o r k , 500 U.S. 3 5 2 , I n a case such as t h i s action of correctional o n e , where E v a t t officials, proof of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i s required. Pardons & Paroles, inmates, without more, F.2d 1107 ( 1 1 t h 292 (1987) clear F u l l e r v . G e o r g i a Bd. o f Cir. treatment of s i m i l a r l y fails Equal Protection Clause. challenges exceptionally 851 F.2d 1307, 1310 ( 1 1 t h M o r e o v e r , mere d i f f e r e n t i a l 359 to allege E & T Realty 1988). situated a v i o l a t i o n of the Co. v . S t r i c k l a n d , 830 C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) ; M c K l e s k e y v . Kemp, 481 U.S. 2 7 9 , (claims o f mere disparity of treatment are insufficient to establish discrimination). As his to his claim t h a t ADOC A d m i n . R e g . No. 009 v i o l a t e d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o equal protection, a s s e r t t h a t Thomas o r ADOC s u b j e c t e d appears t o c l a i m that, because p r i s o n e r s reason. i n o t h e r ADOC f a c i l i t i e s fails prisoners a r e not denied t h e use o f t o b a c c o , he h a s been d e n i e d e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n . well Instead, incarcerated i n HAIC a r e p r o h i b i t e d f r o m u s i n g t o b a c c o p r o d u c t s , b u t incarcerated did not him t o adverse treatment b a s e d on some c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y i m p e r m i s s i b l e he Evatt The l a w i s s e t t l e d t h a t t h e mere d i f f e r e n t i a l t r e a t m e n t o f i n m a t e s to constitute a v i o l a t i o n of the Equal 9 Protection 2110553 Clause. must See E&T R e a l t y , be a c c o r d e d affairs." supra. latitude Indeed, " [ p ] r i s o n officials i n the administration of prison C r u z v . B e t o , 405 U.S. 3 1 9 , 321 ( 1 9 7 2 ) . A t most, E v a t t h a s a l l e g e d "a mere i n c o n s i s t e n c y i n p r i s o n management [that] a may protection Cir. not i n i t s e l f claim." constitute cognizable equal D u r s o v . Rowe, 579 F.2d 1365, 1372 (7th 1978). Accordingly, we c o n c l u d e t h a t E v a t t ' s claim challenging ADOC A d m i n . R e g . No. 009, ADOC's s m o k e / t o b a c c o - f r e e does not set forth a violation of Evatt's right policy, t o equal protection; therefore, the t r i a l court properly dismissed that c l a i m on t h e g r o u n d t h a t i t f a i l e d t o s t a t e a c l a i m on w h i c h relief could be g r a n t e d . As t o t h a t claim, t h e judgment i s affirmed. Our consideration of Evatt's involving ADOC's s u p e r v i s e d different conclusion, purported t o dismiss mentioned, challenging criteria re-entry however. Evatt's t h e judgment ADOC challenge Admin. program leads us t o a Although the judgment complaint i n i t s entirety, d i d not address Reg. No. for prisoners' e l i g i b i l i t y 10 to the regulation Evatt's 452, w h i c h as basis f o r establishes to participate i n ADOC's 2110553 s u p e r v i s e d r e - e n t r y program. t o have c o n f l a t e d E v a t t ' s Nos. Instead, the t r i a l court appears challenges t o t h e two r e g u l a t i o n s , 009 a n d 452, i n t o one c l a i m t h a t c h a l l e n g e d female inmates t o smoke without impacting participate i n t h e r e - e n t r y program. complaint, we agree with postjudgment motion that 1 their right to In reviewing t h e statement the t r i a l the r i g h t of court he made Evatt's in his "misconstrued" h i s c l a i m a s t o ADOC Admin. R e g . No. 452. In inmates h i s complaint, are treated Evatt alleged that differently. male According and female to Evatt, ADOC A d m i n . R e g . No. 452 a l l o w s women t o b e g i n p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e program when they a r e 18 months s e n t e n c e s ; men, h o w e v e r , c a n n o t b e g i n program until sentences. 452 they a r e 12 months from completing to participate from completing their i n the their I n a n u t s h e l l , E v a t t a s s e r t s t h a t Admin Reg. No. d i s c r i m i n a t e s a g a i n s t h i m on t h e b a s i s o f h i s g e n d e r . We n o t e t h a t , i n h i s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , Thomas d i d n o t a d d r e s s E v a t t ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a l l e n g e t o ADOC Admin. R e g . No. 452. Thomas a l s o d i d n o t a d d r e s s t h a t c l a i m i n h i s b r i e f on a p p e a l . E a c h o f i t s a r g u m e n t s on a p p e a l was d i r e c t e d s o l e l y a t whether E v a t t c o u l d s u s t a i n h i s c l a i m c h a l l e n g i n g ADOC Admin. R e g . No. 009. 1 11 2110553 In d i s c u s s i n g the s c r u t i n y c o u r t s must a p p l y to official a c t i o n s t h a t d e n y r i g h t s o r o p p o r t u n i t i e s b a s e d on g e n d e r , United States Supreme C o u r t has said: "Without e q u a t i n g gender c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , f o r a l l p u r p o s e s , t o c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s b a s e d on r a c e o r n a t i o n a l o r i g i n , t h e C o u r t , i n p o s t - R e e d [v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971),] decisions, has carefully i n s p e c t e d o f f i c i a l a c t i o n t h a t c l o s e s a door or denies opportunity t o women (or t o men). See J.E.B. [v. A l a b a m a ex r e l . T. B . ] , 511 U.S. [127] a t 152 [ ( 1 9 9 4 ) ] (KENNEDY, J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n judgment) (case law e v o l v i n g s i n c e 1971 'reveal[s] a strong presumption that gender classifications are invalid'). To summarize the Court's current directions f o r cases of o f f i c i a l classification b a s e d on g e n d e r : F o c u s i n g on t h e differential t r e a t m e n t f o r d e n i a l of o p p o r t u n i t y f o r which r e l i e f is sought, the reviewing court must determine whether the p r o f f e r e d j u s t i f i c a t i o n i s 'exceedingly persuasive.' The burden of justification is d e m a n d i n g and i t r e s t s e n t i r e l y on t h e S t a t e . See M i s s i s s i p p i U n i v . f o r Women [v. H o g a n ] , 458 U.S. [718] a t 724 [(1982)]. The S t a t e must show 'at l e a s t t h a t the [challenged] c l a s s i f i c a t i o n serves " i m p o r t a n t g o v e r n m e n t a l o b j e c t i v e s and that the d i s c r i m i n a t o r y means e m p l o y e d " a r e " s u b s t a n t i a l l y r e l a t e d t o the achievement of those o b j e c t i v e s . " ' I b i d . ( q u o t i n g W e n g l e r v. D r u g g i s t s Mut. I n s . Co., 446 U.S. 142, 150 ( 1 9 8 0 ) ) . The j u s t i f i c a t i o n must be g e n u i n e , n o t h y p o t h e s i z e d o r i n v e n t e d p o s t hoc i n r e s p o n s e t o l i t i g a t i o n . And i t must n o t r e l y on overbroad generalizations about the different t a l e n t s , c a p a c i t i e s , or p r e f e r e n c e s of males and females. See W e i n b e r g e r v. W i e s e n f e l d , 420 U.S. 636, 643, 648 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ; C a l i f a n o v. G o l d f a r b , 430 U.S. 199, 223-224 (1977) (STEVENS, J . , c o n c u r r i n g in judgment)." 12 the 2110553 United States (footnote This erred 452 v. V i r g i n i a , 518 U.S. 5 1 5 , 532-33 (1996) omitted). appeal involves t h e i s s u e whether t h e t r i a l i n dismissing Evatt's court c l a i m t h a t ADOC Admin. Reg. No. d e p r i v e d h i m o f e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n b a s e d on h i s g e n d e r . this stage of the l i t i g a t i o n , the question this court At must answer i s n o t whether E v a t t w i l l u l t i m a t e l y s u c c e e d i n p r o v i n g his c l a i m , b u t w h e t h e r he i s e n t i t l e d t o p r e s e n t support of h i s claim. the male determining inmates important regulation. the court. I d . a t 533. female inmates when The t r i a l court and i d e n t i f y f u r t h e r e d by t h e should not dismiss c l a i m on t h e b a s i s o f r e a s o n s Cruz v. B e t o , w h e t h e r ADOC A d m i n . equal from The s t a t e must come f o r w a r d that, i n h i s complaint, to differently justification for governmental o b j e c t i v e s being an e q u a l - p r o t e c t i o n to persuasive" t h e i r e l i g i b i l i t y t op a r t i c i p a t e i n the supervised r e - e n t r y program. the Thomas may u l t i m a t e l y e s t a b l i s h t h a t s t a t e h a s an " e x c e e d i n g l y treating evidence i n 405 U.S. a t 3 2 1 . Evatt has presented unrevealed We conclude a v i a b l e c l a i m as R e g . No. 452 v i o l a t e s h i s r i g h t t o p r o t e c t i o n on t h e b a s i s o f g e n d e r . 13 2110553 In h i s brief, immunity from addressed Thomas Evatt's only argues claims. that he Although to the a p p l i c a b i l i t y i s entitled to h i s argument i s o f immunity to Evatt's c l a i m t h a t ADOC A d m i n . Reg. No. 009 i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , o u t of an abundance of caution, we w i l l consider the issue of i m m u n i t y a s i t a p p l i e s t o ADOC Admin. R e g . No. 452. Our state instrumentalities their action constitution of the state and s t a t e immunity officers to sued i n o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s when s u c h a c t i o n i s e f f e c t i v e l y an against the state. L y o n s v . R i v e r Road C o n s t r . , 2003). grants A r t . 1, § 14, A l a . C o n s t . 1 9 0 1 ; I n c . , 858 So. 2d 257, However, o u r supreme c o u r t causes o f a c t i o n a r e n o t barred has s t a t e d b y § 14: "'"'There a r e f o u r general categories of a c t i o n s which i n A l a n d v . Graham, 287 A l a . 226, 250 So. 2d 677 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , we s t a t e d do not come within the p r o h i b i t i o n o f § 14: (1) a c t i o n s b r o u g h t t o compel S t a t e o f f i c i a l s to perform t h e i r l e g a l duties; (2) a c t i o n s b r o u g h t 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 ; (3) a c t i o n s to compel State officials to p e r f o r m m i n i s t e r i a l a c t s ; a n d (4) actions brought under the Declaratory J u d g m e n t s A c t ... seeking construction of a statute 14 261 ( A l a . that certain 2110553 and i t s a p p l i c a t i o n i n a g i v e n situation. 287 A l a . a t 229-230, 250 So. 2d 677. ..."' "'Drummond Co. v. A l a b a m a Dep't o f T r a n s p . , 937 So. 2d 56, 58 ( A l a . 2006) ( q u o t i n g [Ex p a r t e ] C a r t e r , 395 So. 2d [65,] 68 [ ( A l a . 1980)]) (emphasis o m i t t e d ) . ' " V a n d e n b e r g v. A r a m a r k E d u c . S e r v s . , (Ala. 2011) Int'l, (quoting Alabama Dep't Inc., 81 So. 3d 326, 332 of Transp. I n c . , 990 So. 2d 8 3 1 , 840 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) ) . o u r supreme c o u r t c l a r i f i e d v. Harbert In Harbert, t h a t these "exceptions," i n c l u d i n g the e x c e p t i o n f o r a c t i o n s s e e k i n g a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment under t h e D e c l a r a t o r y Judgments A c t , state o f f i c i a l s , 990 apply only to actions not actions against state agencies. Harbert, So. 2d a t 8 4 1 . I n t h i s c a s e , E v a t t s u e d Thomas i n h i s o f f i c i a l as t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r o f ADOC. a against judgment regulations regulations. In h i s complaint, Evatt sought d e c l a r i n g t h e u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f two p r i s o n and to enjoin Thomas from enforcing those B e c a u s e s u c h c l a i m s a r e exempt f r o m § 14, Thomas i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o § 14 i m m u n i t y i n t h i s Thomas a l s o prohibited capacity by asserts 42 U.S.C. that § Evatt's 1997e claims the are expressly federal Prison L i t i g a t i o n R e f o r m A c t ("the A c t " ) , 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. Again, 15 of case. 2110553 although this Thomas f a i l e d issue applies t o argue to Evatt's at t r i a l challenge we w i l l t o Reg. No. 452. a r g u m e n t , Thomas makes t h e c o n c l u s o r y that t o ADOC A d m i n . Reg. No. 452, o u t o f an abundance o f c a u t i o n , argument as i t a p p l i e s o r on a p p e a l address the In a one-paragraph statement that Evatt's c o m p l a i n t was " f a t a l l y f l a w e d " i n t h a t E v a t t f a i l e d t o e x h a u s t his administrative remedies and f a i l e d e v i d e n c e o f any " p h y s i c a l i n j u r y . " to allege or provide Thomas p r o v i d e s no l e g a l a n a l y s i s i n s u p p o r t o f h i s argument. In support o f h i s c o n t e n t i o n , Thomas r e l i e s on 42 U.S.C. § 1 9 9 7 e ( a ) a n d ( e ) , w h i c h p r o v i d e s as f o l l o w s : "(a) A p p l i c a b i l i t y of administrative remedies "No a c t i o n s h a l l be b r o u g h t w i t h r e s p e c t t o p r i s o n c o n d i t i o n s u n d e r s e c t i o n 1983 o f t h i s t i t l e , o r a n y o t h e r F e d e r a l law, by a p r i s o n e r c o n f i n e d i n any j a i l , prison, or other c o r r e c t i o n a l f a c i l i t y u n t i l s u c h a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e m e d i e s as a r e a v a i l a b l e a r e exhausted. " "(e) L i m i t a t i o n on r e c o v e r y "No F e d e r a l civil a c t i o n may be b r o u g h t b y a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, f o r mental or emotional i n j u r y suffered while i n custody without a p r i o r showing o f p h y s i c a l i n j u r y . " ( E m p h a s i s added.) 16 2110553 Although state the Act applies facilities, see 42 authority i n d i c a t i n g that state actions. Sixth Circuit to prisoners U.S.C. § incarcerated i n 1997(1), we find no 42 U.S.C. § 1997e i s a p p l i c a b l e i n As t h e U n i t e d States Court of Appeals f o r the wrote: "The A c t was p a s s e d t o r e d u c e f r i v o l o u s p r i s o n e r l a w s u i t s and t o reduce t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n o f f e d e r a l c o u r t s i n t o t h e management o f t h e n a t i o n ' s prison systems. A broad exhaustion requirement that includes excessive force claims effectuates this purpose and maximizes t h e b e n e f i t s o f r e q u i r i n g p r i s o n e r s t o use p r i s o n g r i e v a n c e procedures b e f o r e coming t o f e d e r a l c o u r t . " Freeman v. Francis, (emphasis added). 196 F.3d In this 641, case, 644 Evatt ( 6 t h C i r . 1999) filed a state-court declaratory-judgment action seeking a determination Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t t h a t ADOC A d m i n . Reg. N o s . 009 a n d 452 a r e u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . he h a d s u f f e r e d revealed attempted i n this this court i n d i c a t i n g that state-court t o demonstrate s t a t u t e i n t h i s case. in case, His action also d i d not allege a mental or emotional i n j u r y . no a u t h o r i t y applicable from t h e action, Research has 42 U.S.C. § 1997e i s a n d Thomas h a s n o t the a p p l i c a b i l i t y Accordingly, that of the federal we c o n c l u d e t h a t , a t l e a s t 42 U.S.C. § 1997e d o e s n o t p r o h i b i t t h e t r i a l from c o n s i d e r i n g the claims 17 i n Evatt's complaint. 2110553 For trial the reasons court set forth a b o v e , we c o n c l u d e erred i n dismissing Evatt's A d m i n . Reg. No. 452. Therefore, the t r i a l c o u r t d i s m i s s i n g E v a t t ' s that the c o m p l a i n t a s t o ADOC we r e v e r s e t h e judgment o f c l a i m t h a t ADOC Admin R e g . No. 452 v i o l a t e s h i s r i g h t t o e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n , a n d we remand this cause to the t r i a l consistent with this court f o r further proceedings opinion. AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED I N PART; AND REMANDED. All the judges concur. 18

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.