Harris v. Walker
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Marcus Lydell Walker, an employee of the Macon County Sheriffs Department, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Macon Circuit Court to enter an order holding him immune from suit based on Art. I, sec. 14, Ala. Const. 1901. He further asked the Court to direct the Macon Circuit Court to dismiss the claims asserted against him by Miguel Harris. While acting within the scope of his duty for the Sherriffs Department, Walker and Harris were in a vehicle accident in which Harris was injured. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Walker demonstrated a clear legal right to the relief he sought. Therefore, the Court granted his petition and directed the circuit court to dismiss the claims asserted against Walker.
Download PDF
REL:05/25/2012 N o t i c e : This 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 before 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 Courts, 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 1110436 Ex p a r t e Marcus L y d e l l Walker PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Miguel Harris v. Marcus L y d e l l (Macon C i r c u i t BOLIN, Court, Walker) CV-11-900048) Justice. Marcus Sheriff's Lydell Walker, an e m p l o y e e Department, p e t i t i o n s this o f t h e Macon Court fora County writ of 1110436 mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e M a c o n C i r c u i t Court to enter an holding him on 14, A l a . Const. 1901. Walker Macon Circuit Court Ala. R. immune C i v . P., from suit further based asks to dismiss, the claims this A r t . I, § Court pursuant asserted to d i r e c t the to Rule against order 12(b)(6), him by Miguel Harris. On May 3 1 , 2 0 1 1 , H a r r i s s u e d t h e M a c o n C o u n t y Macon C o u n t y , and W a l k e r , i n b o t h h i s i n d i v i d u a l capacities, Commission, and official alleging in part: "On o r a b o u t A p r i l 9, 2 0 1 1 , w h i l e t r a v e l i n g U.S. H i g h w a y 80 a t o r n e a r F l o y d S t r e e t i n M a c o n C o u n t y , Alabama, the Defendant, Marcus Lydell Walker, i n d i v i d u a l l y , and w h i l e a c t i n g w i t h i n t h e l i n e and scope of h i s employment f o r t h e Macon County S h e r i f f ' s Department, n e g l i g e n t l y and/or wantonly c a u s e d o r a l l o w e d a m o t o r v e h i c l e he was o p e r a t i n g , owned b y D e f e n d a n t s Macon C o u n t y , A l a b a m a and/or Macon C o u n t y C o m m i s s i o n , t o c o l l i d e w i t h a motor v e h i c l e d r i v e n by P l a i n t i f f , M i g u e l H a r r i s . Said negligent a n d / o r w a n t o n c o n d u c t was a p r o x i m a t e c a u s e o f [ H a r r i s ' s ] i n j u r i e s and damages h e r e i n a f t e r described. "At t h e a f o r e s a i d t i m e and p l a c e , t h e D e f e n d a n t , M a r c u s L y d e l l W a l k e r , was e n g a g e d i n t h e r e g u l a r c o u r s e and s c o p e o f h i s employment f o r t h e Macon County S h e r i f f ' s Department. Therefore, Defendants Macon C o u n t y , A l a b a m a a n d / o r Macon C o u n t y C o m m i s s i o n are l e g a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the a c t i o n s of Defendant Marcus L y d e l l Walker p u r s u a n t t o the d o c t r i n e of respondeat s u p e r i o r , p r i n c i p a l / a g e n t and/or master servant. 2 1110436 "At the a f o r e s a i d time and place, and f o r sometime p r i o r t h e r e t o , t h e D e f e n d a n t , Macon C o u n t y , Alabama and/or Macon County Commission, was the owner o f s a i d motor v e h i c l e d r i v e n by Defendant, Marcus Lydell Walker, being a 2009 Ford Crown Victoria The D e f e n d a n t , Macon C o u n t y , A l a b a m a a n d / o r M a c o n C o u n t y C o m m i s s i o n , was t h e o w n e r o f a n d had the r i g h t of c o n t r o l o v e r the use of the motor vehicle driven by the Defendant, Marcus Lydell W a l k e r , and as s u c h , had t h e a u t h o r i t y t o supervise the m a i n t e n a n c e , o p e r a t i o n , and r e p a i r of s a i d motor vehicle. D e f e n d a n t s , Macon C o u n t y , A l a b a m a a n d / o r Macon County Commission, as owner, negligently entrusted s a i d v e h i c l e to Defendant, Marcus L y d e l l W a l k e r , who n e g l i g e n t l y o r w a n t o n l y o p e r a t e d s a i d v e h i c l e i n j u r i n g [ H a r r i s ] . D e f e n d a n t s Macon C o u n t y , A l a b a m a a n d / o r Macon C o u n t y C o m m i s s i o n , entrusted s a i d v e h i c l e to the Defendant, Marcus L y d e l l Walker, and i s t h e r e f o r e l i a b l e t o [ H a r r i s ] . " Harris's County "the claims against Commission county reckless On separately 1, and Macon C o u n t y (hereinafter defendants") conduct, July Walker alleged as a absolutely C o n s t . 1901. The wanton 2011, Walker and the as and wanton e n t r u s t m e n t . County immune negligence, and acting within Macon collectively negligent moved t h e t r i a l he was to and court them p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , that referred and t h e Macon from to dismiss A l a . R. the l i n e Sheriff's suit county the claims C i v . P. against Walker argued and scope o f h i s employment deputy pursuant and i s , to A r t . I, county defendants argued that 3 defendants therefore, § 14, A l a . they cannot be 1110436 held vicariously his deputies sheriffs liable f o r the t o r t i o u s act of the s h e r i f f or because t h e Alabama Constitution and d e p u t i e s as members of the State's department; they are not, denominates executive the county defendants argued, county employees. On N o v e m b e r granting the trial court 30, 2011, t h e t r i a l the county court made no denied testified Harris's response there the time to fact Walker's court an to dismiss; The i n i t s order. -- presented petition trial Harris's i n support f o r the writ stated at the hearing of of on t h e because a s t o w h e t h e r W a l k e r was a c t i n g i n and scope o f h i s d u t i e s of the accident. order however, t h a t i t was d e n y i n g W a l k e r ' s m o t i o n e x i s t e d no e v i d e n c e line of i n an a f f i d a v i t the t r i a l motions to dismiss motion entered Walker's motion t o dismiss. findings attorney mandamus -- t h a t defendants' court The t r i a l as a s h e r i f f ' s court deputy at the reasoned: " [ A ] m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s b a s e d on R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., s h o u l d n o t b e g r a n t e d i f there i s a p o s s i b i l i t y that through discovery the p a r t i e s could f i n d e v i d e n c e t h a t [ W a l k e r ] was n o t a c t i n g w i t h i n the l i n e and scope o f [ h i s d u t i e s ] a t t h e time o f the accident such that [Harris] could possibly recover from [Walker]." Standard o f Review 4 1110436 "Inasmuch as t h e i s s u e b e f o r e us i s w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l court c o r r e c t l y denied a Rule 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) ,A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , ' [ t ] h i s C o u r t m u s t a c c e p t t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e c o m p l a i n t as t r u e . ' Creola Land Dev., I n c . v. Bentbrooke Housing, L . L . C . , 828 S o . 2 d 2 8 5 , 288 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . Moreover, as the defendants sought only a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal without resort to facts supplied by a f f i d a v i t or other evidentiary material outside the a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e c o m p l a i n t , and as t h e t r i a l c o u r t a c c o r d i n g l y t r e a t e d t h e m o t i o n o n l y as what i t was, a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s a n d n o t a m o t i o n f o r summary judgment w i t h e v i d e n t i a r y materials outside the allegations of the complaint, those allegations themselves are the only p o t e n t i a l source of f a c t u a l support f o r the defendants' c l a i m s of immunity. Rule 1 2 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.; M o o n e y h a m v . S t a t e B d . o f C h i r o p r a c t i c E x a m i n e r s , 802 S o . 2 d 200 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ; G a r r i s v . F e d e r a l L a n d B a n k o f J a c k s o n , 584 S o . 2 d 791 ( A l a . 1991); Hales v. F i r s t Nat'l Bank o f M o b i l e , 380 S o . 2 d 797 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) . "'"Mandamus is a drastic and e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t , t o be i s s u e d o n l y where t h e r e i s (1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n t h e petitioner to the order sought; (2) a n imperative duty upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t to p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e remedy; and (4) p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the c o u r t . " E x p a r t e I n t e g o n C o r p . , 672 So. 2 d 4 9 7 , 499 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . . . . O u r r e v i e w i s f u r t h e r l i m i t e d t o t h o s e f a c t s t h a t were b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Ex p a r t e A m e r i c a n Resources I n s . C o . , 663 S o . 2 d 9 3 2 , 936 (Ala. 1995).' "Ex 789 parte National ( A l a . 1998). "'The Rule S e c . I n s . Co., 727 S o . 2 d 7 88 , a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d of review under 12(b)(6) i s whether, when the 5 1110436 allegations of the c o m p l a i n t are viewed most s t r o n g l y i n the p l e a d e r ' s f a v o r , i t appears t h a t the p l e a d e r c o u l d prove any set of c i r c u m s t a n c e s that would entitle [him] to relief. In making this d e t e r m i n a t i o n , t h i s Court does not c o n s i d e r whether the plaintiff will ultimately p r e v a i l , b u t o n l y w h e t h e r [he] may p o s s i b l y p r e v a i l . We n o t e 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 b e y o n d d o u b t t h a t the p l a i n t i f f c a n p r o v e no set of f a c t s i n support of the 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 to r e l i e f . ' " N a n c e v . M a t t h e w s , 622 So. 2d 2 9 7 , 299 ( A l a . 1993) (citations omitted). Accord Cook v. L l o y d N o l a n d F o u n d . , I n c . , 825 So. 2 d 8 3 , 89 (Ala. 2001), and C.B. v . B o b o , 659 So. 2d 98, 104 (Ala. 1995). 'We construe a l l doubts r e g a r d i n g the s u f f i c i e n c y of the complaint i n favor of the plaintiff.' Ex parte Haralson, 853 So. 2d 928, 931 (Ala. 2003). '[A] motion to d i s m i s s i s t y p i c a l l y not the a p p r o p r i a t e v e h i c l e b y w h i c h t o a s s e r t ... q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y o r State-agent immunity and ... normally the d e t e r m i n a t i o n as t o t h e e x i s t e n c e o f s u c h a d e f e n s e s h o u l d be r e s e r v e d u n t i l t h e s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t s t a g e , f o l l o w i n g a p p r o p r i a t e d i s c o v e r y . ' Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a D e p ' t o f M e n t a l H e a l t h & M e n t a l R e t a r d a t i o n , 837 So. 2d 808, 813-14 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . " Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a D e p ' t o f Y o u t h S e r v s . , (Ala. 880 So. in this 2d 393, 397-98 2003). Discussion Walker states t h a t the t r a f f i c the line and that the complaint a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d w h i l e he was scope of his employment 6 for the case alleges "acting within Macon County 1110436 Sheriff's Department" and t h a t at the time of the accident he "was e n g a g e d i n t h e r e g u l a r c o u r s e a n d s c o p e o f h i s e m p l o y m e n t for t h e Macon C o u n t y his petition that Alabama pursuant contends that, Sheriff's Department." he i s a n e x e c u t i v e officer as an e x e c u t i v e of the State, officer Walker he i s p u r s u a n t t o A r t . I , § 14, A l a . C o n s t . 1 9 0 1 , as a d e p u t y official the complaint individual immunity line those upon t h i s So. 928 capacity simply time of evidence allegations a n d he a r g u e s claims only from because the accident showing that, against i f he was contends against that i nh i s that inhis i s entitled to acting within the of the that him Walker at the time 7 Walker i n Ex p a r t e he was o p e r a t i n g and suit h o w e v e r , he n o t e s at the time Harris claims from that Walker Court's decision ( A l a . 2003), immunity i s immune sheriff; of h i s duties Relying assert Walker as a d e p u t y contained and scope 2d that capacity, from he was e x e c u t i n g h i s sheriff. concedes capacity of 1901. f o r money d a m a g e s f o r a c t i o n s t a k e n w h i l e Harris argues i n of the State t o A r t . V, § 1 1 2 , A l a . C o n s t . immune f r o m s u i t , duties Walker accident. Haralson, Walker in his 853 cannot individual h i sp a t r o l car at the must put forth of the accident, he some was 1110436 a c t i n g w i t h i n t h e l i n e and s c o p e o f h i s employment as a d e p u t y sheriff. Harris properly denied because prevail on h i s c l a i m s shown t h a t his states motion against Walker W a l k e r was n o t a c t i n g w i t h i n employment at the time that discovery has taken p l a c e discovery at this i n order within the sheriff at the time This the i ti s entirely contends for that line Court and has to possible stage and t h a t that individually the l i n e of the accident. early dismiss of could i f i t i s and scope o f Harris the he s h o u l d he was further proceeding be a l l o w e d no time t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r W a l k e r was acting scope deputy of the of h i s employment as a accident. stated: "A s h e r i f f i s an e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r o f t h i s S t a t e 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 of 1901, A r t . V, § 1 1 2 . P a r k e r [ v . A m e r s o n ] , 519 S o . 2 d [ 4 2 2 , ] a t 443 [(Ala. 1987)]. As an e x e c u t i v e officer, a s h e r i f f i s immune f r o m b e i n g s u e d i n t h e e x e c u t i o n of t h e d u t i e s o f h i s o f f i c e u n d e r A r t . I , § 14, Alabama Const. 1901. I d . a t 442-43. F u r t h e r m o r e , a s h e r i f f , as an e m p l o y e e o f t h e S t a t e , ' i s immune from s u i t , i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y , f o r negligent performance of h i s s t a t u t o r y d u t i e s . ' Alexander [v. H a t f i e l d ] , 652 S o . 2 d [ 1 1 4 2 , ] a t 1 1 4 3 [ ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ] ; P a r k e r , 519 S o . 2 d a t 4 4 2 - 4 3 ; W r i g h t v . B a i l e y , 611 So. 2 d 3 0 0 , 303 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . "This Court has h e l d t h a t deputy s h e r i f f s a r e immune t o t h e same extent sheriffs a r e immune b e c a u s e ' " [ t ] h e d e p u t y s h e r i f f i s t h e a l t e r ego o f t h e s h e r i f f . " ' H e r e f o r d v . J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y , 586 S o . 8 1110436 2 d 2 0 9 , 210 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ( q u o t i n g M o s e l y v . K e n n e d y , 245 A l a . 4 4 8 , 4 5 0 , 17 S o . 2 d 5 3 6 , 537 ( 1 9 4 4 ) ) . A deputy s h e r i f f a c t i n g i n h i s ' o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t [ y ] and individually' i s immune from suit when t h e a c t i o n i s one a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e . See P h i l l i p s v . T h o m a s , 555 S o . 2 d 8 1 , 83 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . See a l s o H e r e f o r d , 586 S o . 2 d a t 210 ( d e p u t y s h e r i f f s w e r e entitled to State immunity f o r t h e i r actions i n r e l e a s i n g a p r i s o n e r ) ; s e e a l s o W r i g h t , 611 S o . 2 d at 303 (deputy sheriffs were e n t i t l e d to State immunity f o r t h e i r n e g l i g e n t f a i l u r e to a r r e s t a m o t o r i s t ) ; D r a i n v . Odom, 631 S o . 2 d 971 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ( d e p u t y s h e r i f f was e n t i t l e d t o S t a t e i m m u n i t y , i n his official capacity, f o r actions taken in performance of h i s duties as deputy sheriff); Alexander, 652 S o . 2 d a t 1144 ( d e p u t y s h e r i f f was e n t i t l e d to State immunity f o r a c t i o n s taken while 'on d u t y ' ) . " Ex parte In Haralson, Ex deputy parte seeking automobile operating 853 S o . 2 d a t 9 3 2 . Haralson, to accident recover under § 14. The trial to dismiss sheriff's result of an the deputy was the the deputy while court denied petitioned this the t r i a l court As W a l k e r a r g u e s h e r e , support court a department. the complaint The against among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t he was immune f r o m he t h e n directing in as sued a v e h i c l e owned b y t h e s h e r i f f ' s arguing, dismiss; damages involving d e p u t y moved t h e t r i a l him, the p l a i n t i f f Court to dismiss the deputy's for a writ the claims motion a g a i n s t him. t h a t he was an e x e c u t i v e 9 to o f mandamus t h e d e p u t y i n Ex p a r t e H a r a l s o n , of h i s p e t i t i o n suit argued o f f i c e r of 1110436 the State 1901, pursuant and Art. I, that that this his § 14, to § executive immunity 112, Alabama officer from being the he Constitution is entitled, sued. The execution of under deputy the of argued duties of office. the plaintiff i n Ex parte deputy's p e t i t i o n that immunity simply the he an V, immunity extended to The to as to A r t . State was and "on b e c a u s e he that duty" employment at the that i t was authority without This of the the the asserted d e p u t y was and/or was State at trial court he entitled time that not was the The he correctly entitled to officer of an scope plaintiff d e p u t y was of opposition to immunity only i f within accident. the indicating that acting time of the argued i n d e p u t y was c l e a r whether the evidence authority, dismiss. not the Haralson, of claimed a c t i n g under the accident was acting denied his and agreed with the plaintiff and motion stated: "We c a n n o t c o n c l u d e , a t t h i s e a r l y s t a g e o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , w i t h o u t evidence showing t h a t at the t i m e o f t h e a c c i d e n t he was a c t i n g w i t h i n t h e line and s c o p e o f h i s e m p l o y m e n t , t h a t D e p u t y H a r a l s o n i s e n t i t l e d t o i m m u n i t y . No S t a t e o f f i c e r , s u c h as a d e p u t y s h e r i f f , can a v o i d t o r t l i a b i l i t y s i m p l y by claiming that his '"mere status as a [S]tate official cloaks him with the [S]tate's 10 the that, under Id. Court his such to 1110436 c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i m m u n i t y . " ' P h i l l i p s [ v . T h o m a s ] , 555 So. 2d [ 8 1 , ] a t 83 [ ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ] ( q u o t i n g B a r n e s v . D a l e , 530 So. 2 d 7 7 0 , 781 ( A l a . 1 98 8 ) ) ; s e e a l s o M i t c h e l l [ v . D a v i s ] , 598 So. 2 d [ 8 0 1 , ] a t 806 [(Ala. 1992)]. I t i s conceivable that G r i f f i t h could prove facts that would show t h a t a t t h e time of the a c c i d e n t D e p u t y H a r a l s o n was on a p e r s o n a l e r r a n d o r o t h e r w i s e had d e p a r t e d f r o m t h e l i n e and s c o p e o f his employment. I f so, G r i f f i t h 'may possibl[y] p r e v a i l ' on h e r c l a i m s . See N a n c e [ v . M a t h e w s ] , 622 So. 2d [2 97 ,] at 299 [(Ala. 1 993)]. Given the question presented by this mandamus petition-¬ whether the trial court should have dismissed Griffith's c l a i m s a g a i n s t Deputy Haralson on the g r o u n d t h a t he i s e n t i t l e d t o S t a t e i m m u n i t y - - w e c o n c l u d e t h a t D e p u t y H a r a l s o n h a s n o t s h o w n t h a t he h a s '"a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t ... t o t h e o r d e r sought."' [Ex p a r t e ] B u t t s , 775 So. 2 d [173] a t 178 [(Ala. 2000)] ( q u o t i n g Ex parte United Serv. Stations, Inc., 628 So. 2 d a t 5 0 3 ) . " Ex parte We Haralson, find the distinguishable to those (Ala. Blankenship, recover the time i n Ex case an and at 933. in i n Ex p a r t e parte relied this arising Blankenship, on complaint employee of the from by an and a p l a c e o f t h e a c c i d e n t t h e d e p u t y was So. 2d Ex accident driven and be the that 303 parte deputy seeking alleged that department to more a k i n In vehicle being sheriff's and 893 Walker. automobile specifically 11 petition Haralson the p l a i n t i f f sued a s h e r i f f ' s damages The 2d presented from those plaintiff's vehicle deputy. was a So. facts presented 2004 ), 853 to between by the deputy at the "'performing his 1110436 duties as moved the arguing § 14. 14. trial t h a t he The The again a Deputy trial court was to t h a t he Court agreed, 2d the to absolute denied was So. dismiss entitled court 893 the deputy p e t i t i o n e d t h i s arguing This Sheriff.'" motion Court at 305. claims The deputy against immunity pursuant to to dismiss. for a writ immune f r o m l i a b i l i t y of mandamus, pursuant stating: "Where i t i s u n d i s p u t e d that a deputy s h e r i f f i s ' a c t i n g w i t h i n t h e l i n e and s c o p e o f h i s employment ... a t t h e t i m e [he i s i n v o l v e d i n an automobile] a c c i d e n t ' w i t h the p l a i n t i f f , § 14, Ala. Const. 1 9 0 1 , b a r s an a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e d e p u t y s h e r i f f f o r damages arising out of the accident. Ex parte M c W h o r t e r , 880 So. 2d [ 1 1 1 6 , ] a t 1117 [(Ala. 2003)]. T h i s i s s o , b e c a u s e an a c t i o n a g a i n s t a s h e r i f f - - o r a d e p u t y s h e r i f f - - f o r damages a r i s i n g out of the performance of h i s d u t i e s i s ' " e s s e n t i a l l y a suit a g a i n s t t h e s t a t e . " ' P a r k e r v . A m e r s o n , 519 So. 2d 4 4 2 , 445 ( A l a . 1987) ( q u o t i n g M o n t i e l v. H o l c o m b e , 240 A l a . 3 5 2 , 3 5 4 , 199 So. 2 4 5 , 245 (1940)); accord D r a i n v. Odom, 631 So. 2d 971 , 972 ( A l a . 1994 ) ( ' d e p u t y s h e r i f f s a r e immune t o t h e same e x t e n t a s sheriffs'). "Here, i t i s a l l e g e d i n the complaint and a d m i t t e d i n the answer t h a t Deputy B l a n k e n s h i p was a c t i n g i n t h e l i n e and s c o p e o f h i s d u t i e s a t t h e time o f t h e a c c i d e n t . Of c o u r s e , in reviewing a motion to d i s m i s s , the Court '"must a c c e p t the a l l e g a t i o n s of the c o m p l a i n t a s t r u e . " ' Ex parte A l a b a m a D e p ' t o f Y o u t h S e r v s . , 880 So. 2d 3 9 3 , 397 ( A l a . 2003) ( e m p h a s i s added) ( q u o t i n g C r e o l a L a n d Dev., I n c . v. B e n t b r o o k e H o u s i n g , L.L.C., 828 So. 2 d 2 8 5 , 288 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ) . T h u s , an a c t i o n a g a i n s t D e p u t y B l a n k e n s h i p b a s e d on t h i s c o m p l a i n t i s b a r r e d 12 him, to § 1110436 b y § 14, a n d t h e t r i a l motion to d i s m i s s . " Ex parte Blankenship, Here, once but scope Harris twice, of his within employment in the line the scope of his Sheriff's well and that Department Walker as at rule an the a t 306 (quoting 260 F. 3d the a l l e g a t i o n s of the Inc. v. 2002). Walker was time a his Ex of the parte (7th C i r . 2001)). complaint Harris "acting L.L.C., himself within as from 13 for the normal County accident. is bound by we 828 2d the and a i t So. 2d L.L.C., "must Creola is what 893 true." in It Capital, So. the Macon the Further, line engaged allegations Blankenship, alleged the "was no the "acting employment deviated party and Sheriff's W a l k e r was There are of line County H e l p a t Home, I n c . v . M e d i c a l Bentbrooke Housing, Because of employee "'"that in i t s pleadings."'" 753 the not Harris alleged in accident had the complaint, within Macon accident. scope states 748, the Department." duties established in his acting with denying s c o p e o f h i s e m p l o y m e n t " and course complaint in 305. alleged time of the Macon C o u n t y S h e r i f f ' s in erred at was time of the and regular 2d Walker t h a t at the the So. specifically that Department at the complaint 893 court accept Land Dev., 288 (Ala. 285, complaint scope of that his 1110436 employment" regular as course a deputy and sheriff scope County Sheriff's Walker i s immune f r o m of his Department" suit and at "was engaged employment the pursuant time to § for of in the the the Macon accident, 14. Conclusion W a l k e r has d e m o n s t r a t e d sought. Therefore, mandamus claims and direct asserted grant the the Macon Circuit against and Wise, C.J., legal right we and petition Court to the for to a relief writ dismiss of the Walker. P E T I T I O N GRANTED; WRIT Malone, a clear ISSUED. Woodall, J J . , concur. 14 Stuart, Parker, Shaw, Main,
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.
