Haywood v. Alexander
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.
Anthony Haywood and Daniel Hall appealed a circuit court judgment that dismissed claims against Sheriff Dorothy "Jean Dot" Alexander, which were filed as part of a counterclaim in an action filed against Phillip Eugene Green, Haywood, and Hall by Scott Cotney, an administrator at the Clay County jail. In 2010, Cotney sued Green, a former correctional officer at the jail, and Haywood and Hall, former inmates at the jail, alleging defamation, slander, libel, invasion of privacy, negligence, and wantonness. The claims resulted from a report filed by Green, Haywood, and Hall with the Alabama Department of Corrections, claiming that Cotney had used his position as an administrator at the jail to sexually abuse and/or to assault Haywood and Hall while they were incarcerated in the jail. Haywood and Hall argued that the circuit court erred in granting Sheriff Alexander's motion to dismiss the claims against her. Specifically, they argued: (1) that their failure to identify Sheriff Alexander as a third-party defendant rather than a counterclaim defendant was not fatal to their complaint; (2) that Haywood and Hall were convicted felons, not pretrial detainees, during the relevant period and therefore had certain rights under the Eighth Amendment; (3) that Haywood's and Hall's rights pursuant to Fourth Amendment were violated because they were subject to "numerous acts of unlawful strip searches and bodily invasion perpetrated upon them by Cotney while he was the administrator of the [jail]"; (4) that Sheriff Alexander was not entitled to immunity under the State or Federal constitutions. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Haywood and Hall did not demonstrate any error in the circuit court's decision to dismiss the federal claims against Sheriff Alexander in her official capacity or the state-law claims against her in both her official and individual capacities. Therefore, the circuit court's judgment was affirmed insofar as it dismissed those claims. However, at this stage of the proceedings Sheriff Alexander was not entitled to a dismissal of the federal claims against her in her individual capacity.
Download PDF
Rel: 2/22/13 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 , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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, 2012-2013 1111316 Anthony Haywood and D a n i e l Hall v. Dorothy "Jean Dot" Alexander Appeal from Clay C i r c u i t (CV-10-29) BRYAN, Court Justice. A n t h o n y Haywood a n d D a n i e l H a l l have a p p e a l e d a j u d g m e n t of t h e C l a y C i r c u i t Court, dismissing claims Dorothy "Jean D o t " Alexander, against w h i c h were f i l e d Sheriff as p a r t ofa c o u n t e r c l a i m i n an a c t i o n f i l e d a g a i n s t P h i l l i p Eugene G r e e n , Haywood, a n d H a l l by Scott Cotney, an a d m i n i s t r a t o r at the 1111316 Clay part, County jail reverse ("the j a i l " ) . i t i n part, We affirm t h e judgment i n a n d remand t h e c a s e for further proceedings. F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y In 2010, Cotney sued Green, a former c o r r e c t i o n a l at the j a i l , alleging officer and Haywood a n d H a l l , f o r m e r i n m a t e s a t t h e j a i l , defamation, slander, n e g l i g e n c e , and wantonness. libel, invasion of p r i v a c y , The c l a i m s r e s u l t e d f r o m a r e p o r t f i l e d b y G r e e n , Haywood, a n d H a l l w i t h t h e Alabama Department o f C o r r e c t i o n s , c l a i m i n g t h a t C o t n e y h a d u s e d h i s p o s i t i o n as an administrator at the j a i l t o s e x u a l l y abuse and/or to a s s a u l t Haywood a n d H a l l w h i l e t h e y were i n c a r c e r a t e d i n t h e jail. Haywood pursuant and H a l l to 42 filed U.S.C. § a counterclaim 1983, alleging against that Cotney, Cotney had v i o l a t e d Haywood's a n d H a l l ' s r i g h t s u n d e r t h e F o u r t h , E i g h t h , and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . Haywood a n d H a l l Clay County a l s o named Commission as c o u n t e r c l a i m ("the commission") defendants the and Sheriff A l e x a n d e r , i n h e r o f f i c i a l and i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s . Haywood and H a l l a l l e g e d " t h a t S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r ... h a d k n o w l e d g e o f 2 1111316 [Cotney's] occur." unlawful acts ... and p e r m i t t e d Haywood a n d H a l l ' s b r i e f , supervisor l i a b i l i t y , a t 2. Haywood a n d H a l l t h e abuse t o Arguing a theory of "made t h e same c l a i m s a g a i n s t h e r as were made a g a i n s t C o t n e y i n a d d i t i o n t o a c l a i m for negligent supervision." Id. Cotney denied t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m , and the commission and S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r to dismiss the counterclaim 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. moved t h e c i r c u i t against them, citing Haywood a n d H a l l c o n s e n t e d d i s m i s s a l of t h e claims a g a i n s t the commission; those were d i s m i s s e d . A f t e r a hearing, the c i r c u i t court the c l a i m s a g a i n s t S h e r i f f Alexander as w e l l , t h a t t h e commission and S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r ' s was " w e l l - t a k e n . " final, and pursuant Hall court Rule to the claims dismissed stating simply motion t o dismiss The c i r c u i t c o u r t c e r t i f i e d i t s j u d g m e n t as t o Rule 54(b), A l a . R. C i v . P., a n d Haywood appealed. Issues Haywood a n d H a l l granting Sheriff against her. to identify argue t h a t t h e c i r c u i t Alexander's Specifically, Sheriff motion they argue Alexander 3 as a court erred i n to dismiss the claims (1) t h a t t h e i r failure t h i r d - p a r t y defendant 1111316 r a t h e r than a c o u n t e r c l a i m complaint; not (2) pretrial d e f e n d a n t was t h a t Haywood and detainees, Hall during not fatal to were c o n v i c t e d the relevant their felons, period and t h e r e f o r e had c e r t a i n r i g h t s u n d e r t h e E i g h t h Amendment, w h i c h were v i o l a t e d ; (3) t h a t Haywood's and Hall's rights pursuant t o F o u r t h Amendment were v i o l a t e d b e c a u s e t h e y were s u b j e c t t o "numerous a c t s o f u n l a w f u l s t r i p s e a r c h e s and b o d i l y i n v a s i o n p e r p e t r a t e d upon them by C o t n e y w h i l e he was of the [ j a i l ] " ; immunity under the a d m i n i s t r a t o r (4) t h a t S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r i s n o t e n t i t l e d the Eleventh Amendment o f the United C o n s t i t u t i o n on t h e f e d e r a l c l a i m s a g a i n s t h e r i n h e r capacity, or t o S t a t e immunity pursuant to A r t i c l e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n 1901, i n both her States official I, § 14, on t h e s t a t e - l a w c l a i m s a g a i n s t her i n d i v i d u a l and official c a p a c i t i e s ; and (5) S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y on federal claims against to her. Standard of Review "On a p p e a l , a d i s m i s s a l i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o a presumption of correctness. The appropriate s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w u n d e r R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) [ , A l a . R. Civ. P.,] i s w h e t h e r , when 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 a r e v i e w e d most s t r o n g l y i n t h e p l e a d e r ' s f a v o r , i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e p l e a d e r c o u l d p r o v e any set of circumstances t h a t would e n t i t l e [him] to relief. In making t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n , t h i s Court 4 that the 1111316 does not consider whether the plaintiff will ultimately p r e v a i l , but only whether [ h e ] may possibly prevail. We n o t e t h a t a R u l e 12(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 t h e p l a i n t i f f can p r o v e no s e t o f 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 . " Nance v. M a t t h e w s , 622 So. 2d 297, 299 ( A l a . 1993) (citations omitted). Analysis The circuit court did not d i s m i s s a l the reasons i t granted dismiss. On appeal, Haywood grounds p r e s e n t e d i n the grounds provided a against Sheriff First, argued in [ w e r e ] not, i t s judgment of S h e r i f f Alexander's motion to and motion, proper in Hall attack arguing basis for the several t h a t none o f dismissing the those claims Alexander. Haywood her specify and motion in fact, Hall that note "[t]he counterclaims p a r t y c l a i m s t h a t [ w e r e ] due that Sheriff asserted and Alexander 'counterclaims' [were] instead t o be d i s m i s s e d . " She went on argue: " S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r [ i s ] not [ a ] p a r t [ y ] to the o r i g i n a l l a w s u i t i n t h i s m a t t e r . [She i s ] , i n s t e a d , [ a ] t h i r d p a r t [ y ] to the i n i t i a l l a w s u i t . It is t h e r e f o r e a misnomer t o c a l l t h e c l a i m s against [ h e r ] 'Counter C l a i m s , ' because c o u n t e r c l a i m s under 5 third to 1111316 R u l e 13 o f t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e a r e asserted only against the o r i g i n a l plaintiff(s)." However, Civ. a s Haywood a n d H a l l note, P., p r o v i d e s : " P e r s o n s o t h e r t h a n Rule those 13(h), A l a . R. made p a r t i e s t o t h e o r i g i n a l a c t i o n may be made p a r t i e s t o a c o u n t e r c l a i m o r c r o s s - c l a i m i n accordance w i t h the p r o v i s i o n s of Rules 20[, A l a . R. Civ. P.]." Rule 20(a), A l a . R. 19 a n d C i v . P., provides, i n pertinent p a r t : "All p e r s o n s may be j o i n e d i n t h e a c t i o n a s defendants i f there i s asserted against them j o i n t l y , s e v e r a l l y , o r i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , any r i g h t o f r e l i e f i n r e s p e c t o f o r a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n , occurrence, or s e r i e s of t r a n s a c t i o n s or o c c u r r e n c e s and i f any q u e s t i o n o f l a w o r f a c t common t o a l l d e f e n d a n t s w i l l a r i s e i n t h e a c t i o n . " The claims counterclaim Cotney alleged based against on h e r s u p e r v i s o r y and f o r t h e j a i l clearly transactions or occurrences Thus, p u r s u a n t Sheriff t o Rules Alexander i n the responsibilities for arise o u t o f t h e same as do t h e c l a i m s a g a i n s t Cotney. 1 3 ( h ) a n d 2 0 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., t h e a d d i t i o n of S h e r i f f Alexander t o t h e a c t i o n as a c o u n t e r c l a i m d e f e n d a n t a n d n o t as a t h i r d - p a r t y d e f e n d a n t was p r o p e r , a n d S h e r i f f Alexander her also dismissed Century was n o t e n t i t l e d t o have t h e c l a i m s against on t h e b a s i s t h a t i t was e r r o r t o do s o . 21 Paramount Real 6 Estate, I n c . v. See Hometown 1111316 Realty, provides L L C , 34 So. 3d 658, 663 that persons other (Ala. 2009) ("Rule 1 3 ( h ) than the o r i g i n a l p a r t i e s t o the a c t i o n may be j o i n e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h R u l e 20 as a d d i t i o n a l defendants in counterclaim. connection Rule with 20(a) p r o v i d e s a party's that filing a l l persons of may a be j o i n e d i n one a c t i o n as d e f e n d a n t s i f t h e c l a i m s a g a i n s t them a r i s e o u t o f t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n s o r o c c u r r e n c e s . " ) . A l e x a n d e r has s u b m i t t e d no b r i e f to this Sheriff C o u r t and t h u s has made no a r g u m e n t t o t h e c o n t r a r y . Haywood a n d H a l l n e x t argue: " S h e r i f f Alexander argued i n the lower court that the claim against her f o r v i o l a t i o n of c i v i l and constitutional r i g h t s u n d e r t h e ... E i g h t h Amendment t o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d b e c a u s e H a l l a n d Haywood were 'pre-trial detainees' and ' o n l y the Fourteenth Amendment c o u l d a c t u a l l y a p p l y ' t o t h e i r c l a i m s . " Haywood a n d H a l l ' s b r i e f , a t 25. In her motion t o dismiss, S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r a r g u e d t h a t , "as p r e - t r i a l detainees, t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment c o u l d a c t u a l l y a p p l y t o t h e s e as the Eight[h] Amendment applies only to only claims, convicted p r i s o n e r s , " a n d c i t e d B e l l v . W o l f i s h , 441 U.S. 520 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , i n support o f h e r argument. The Supreme C o u r t i n B e l l stated: "The C o u r t o f A p p e a l s p r o p e r l y r e l i e d on t h e Due P r o c e s s C l a u s e r a t h e r t h a n t h e E i g h t h Amendment i n 7 1111316 c o n s i d e r i n g the c l a i m s of p r e t r i a l d e t a i n e e s . Due p r o c e s s r e q u i r e s t h a t a p r e t r i a l d e t a i n e e n o t be punished. A s e n t e n c e d i n m a t e , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , may be p u n i s h e d , a l t h o u g h t h a t p u n i s h m e n t may n o t be ' c r u e l and u n u s u a l ' u n d e r t h e E i g h t h Amendment. The C o u r t r e c o g n i z e d t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i n I n g r a h a m v. W r i g h t , 430 U.S. 651, 671-672, n.40 ( 1 9 7 7 ) : 'Eighth Amendment s c r u t i n y i s a p p r o p r i a t e o n l y a f t e r t h e State has complied with the constitutional guarantees t r a d i t i o n a l l y associated with c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s . See U n i t e d S t a t e s v. L o v e t t , 328 U.S. 303, 317-318 (1946). ... [T]he S t a t e does not a c q u i r e t h e power t o p u n i s h w i t h w h i c h t h e E i g h t h Amendment i s c o n c e r n e d u n t i l a f t e r i t has s e c u r e d a f o r m a l a d j u d i c a t i o n o f g u i l t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h due p r o c e s s of law. Where t h e S t a t e s e e k s t o impose punishment without such an adjudication, the pertinent constitutional guarantee i s the Due P r o c e s s C l a u s e o f t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment.'" Bell, 441 U.S. a t 537 n.16. However, Haywood a l l e g e s t h a t he was f r o m 2008 t o 2010; H a l l a l l e g e s t h a t he was t r a n s f e r to the j a i l in to, early 2008, b u t among o t h e r i n 2008. he is a guilty abused a f t e r a pretrial detainee t h i n g s , a charge of u n l a w f u l p o s s e s s i o n of a relevant period. later his year Thus, Haywood was plea jail that at l e a s t p a r t of the Code 1975 Haywood was entered c o n t r o l l e d substance. Ala. abused at the a convicted felon for See § 13A-12-212 ( b ) , ("Unlawful p o s s e s s i o n of a c o n t r o l l e d substance a Class C felony."). d e g r e e b u r g l a r y and, H a l l pleaded t h e r e f o r e , was 8 g u i l t y i n 2006 t o third- a convicted felon during 1111316 the relevant period. ("Burglary in Therefore, that third § S h e r i f f Alexander Eighth the See Amendment c l a i m s Haywood protections degree was against and H a l l were is a Alexander Haywood's and Hall's should dismissed also her dismissed argued they and Haywood]." Sheriff Alexander searches argue, they Haywood d i d not allege felony.). on t h e t o whom t h e i n the court claims below that against her had not a l l e g e d that participate v i o l a t e d the Fourth Amendment. instead: and H a l l ' s b r i e f , a t 26 9 (emphasis added). that i n the "Haywood and H a l l c l a i m v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e i r Fourth Amendment r i g h t u n d e r t h e U n i t e d States C o n s t i t u t i o n t o be f r e e f r o m u n l a w f u l s e a r c h and s e i z u r e as t h e y were t h e v i c t i m s o f numerous a c t s o f unlawful strip searches and bodily invasion p e r p e t r a t e d upon them by C o t n e y w h i l e he was t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r of the [ j a i l ] . S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r has l e g a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and s u p e r v i s o r l i a b i l i t y f o r C o t n e y ' s w r o n g f u l c o n d u c t as she 'has t h e l e g a l c u s t o d y and c h a r g e o f t h e j a i l i n h e r c o u n t y and a l l prisoners committed thereto' and thus has s u p e r v i s o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y over Cotney." Haywood she or s e i z u r e of and H a l l do n o t d i s p u t e personally basis apply. " p e r s o n a l l y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n any t y p e o f s e a r c h [Hall 1975 t o have t h e detainees Amendment because C not e n t i t l e d pretrial Fourth A l a . Code Class o f t h e E i g h t h Amendment d i d n o t Sheriff be 13A-7-7(b), They 1111316 " ' " S u p e r v i s o r l i a b i l i t y [ u n d e r § 1983] o c c u r s e i t h e r when t h e s u p e r v i s o r p e r s o n a l l y p a r t i c i p a t e s i n t h e a l l e g e d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n o r when t h e r e i s a c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n between a c t i o n s o f t h e s u p e r v i s i n g o f f i c i a l and t h e a l l e g e d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l deprivation. The causal connection c a n be e s t a b l i s h e d when a h i s t o r y o f w i d e s p r e a d abuse p u t s t h e r e s p o n s i b l e s u p e r v i s o r on n o t i c e o f t h e n e e d t o c o r r e c t t h e a l l e g e d d e p r i v a t i o n , a n d [she] f a i l s t o do s o . The d e p r i v a t i o n s t h a t c o n s t i t u t e w i d e s p r e a d abuse s u f f i c i e n t t o n o t i c e t h e s u p e r v i s i n g o f f i c i a l must be o b v i o u s , f l a g r a n t , r a m p a n t , a n d o f c o n t i n u e d d u r a t i o n , r a t h e r than i s o l a t e d occurrences."'" Ex parte (Ala. A l a b a m a Dep't o f Y o u t h S e r v s . , 2003) 880 So. 2d 393, 403 ( q u o t i n g B r a d d y v . F l o r i d a Dep't o f L a b o r & Emp't Sec. , 133 F.3d 797, 802 (11th C i r . 1998), Brown F.2d v. Crawford, 906 667, 671 quoting i n turn ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1990) (emphasis o m i t t e d ) ) . Haywood and H a l l ' s counterclaim alleges that Sheriff Alexander "had k n o w l e d g e t h a t H a l l a n d Haywood were b e i n g subjected to sexual a s s a u l t on an o n g o i n g a n d continuous b a s i s while i n the custody of [ S h e r i f f Alexander] y e t d i d not take a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n . [ S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r ] , d e s p i t e knowledge o f customs and p r a c t i c e s of the Clay County j a i l i n the e x p l o i t a t i o n o f i t s inmates and t h e o p p o r t u n i t y c r e a t e d t h e r e b y f o r abuse, d i d n o t take a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n t o p r e v e n t s u c h abuse a n d d i d t h e r e b y d e p r i v e [Haywood a n d H a l l ] o f t h e i r r i g h t s a g a i n s t c r u e l a n d unusual punishment, i n v a s i o n of t h e i r right to p r i v a c y a n d b o d i l y i n t e g r i t y a n d due p r o c e s s r i g h t s u n d e r t h e F o u r t h , E i g h t h a n d F o u r t e e n t h Amendment[s] 10 1111316 to the C o n s t i t u t i o n of the v i o l a t i o n o f 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Thus, the counterclaim United alleges "a between a c t i o n s o f [ S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r County deprivation inmates),] [(i.e., and the v i o l a t i o n F o u r t h Amendment r i g h t s ) ] . " Servs., 880 Court's decision connection her f a i l u r e to sexual assault of alleged constitutional o f Haywood's a n d H a l l ' s Therefore, i n Ex p a r t e Alabama pursuant Department of this Youth against her dismissed t h e b a s i s t h a t she c a n n o t be h e l d v i c a r i o u s l y l i a b l e violations. to i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o have Haywood's H a l l ' s F o u r t h Amendment c l a i m s alleged in Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Dep't o f Y o u t h So. 2d a t 403. Services, S h e r i f f Alexander and the causal (i.e., address t h e a l l e g e d 'ongoing and c o n t i n u o u s ' Clay States on f o r the 1 Haywood a n d H a l l n e x t argue: " S h e r i f f Alexander i s not e n t i t l e d t o absolute i m m u n i t y p u r s u a n t t o t h e E l e v e n t h Amendment t o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . Her argument i n t h e [ c i r c u i t ] c o u r t t h a t she h a s a b s o l u t e i m m u n i t y a g a i n s t s t a t e l a w c l a i m s due t o h e r p o s i t i o n as an e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r o f t h e S t a t e o f Alabama under No argument was made i n e i t h e r t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s o r i n Haywood a n d H a l l ' s b r i e f on a p p e a l as t o w h e t h e r " u n l a w f u l strip searches and b o d i l y i n v a s i o n " c o n s t i t u t e " i l l e g a l s e a r c h e s o r s e i z u r e s " f o r p u r p o s e s o f t h e F o u r t h Amendment. T h e r e f o r e , we do n o t a d d r e s s t h a t i s s u e a t t h i s t i m e . 1 11 1111316 A r t i c l e I , § 14 o f t h e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901, should f a i l . " Haywood a n d H a l l ' s b r i e f , a t 28. S h e r i f f Alexander argued i n her b r i e f i n support of her motion t o d i s m i s s t h a t " [ t ] h e f e d e r a l c l a i m s a g a i n s t [her] i n her o f f i c i a l the United States Constitution." executive under This c a p a c i t y a r e b a r r e d b y t h e E l e v e n t h Amendment t o officer Article section of the State, She a l s o a r g u e d t h a t , "as an [ s h e ] i s immune from I , § 14 o f t h e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n immunizes S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r suit o f 1901. from a l l s t a t e law c l a i m s , e v e n t h o u g h she i s [ b e i n g ] s u e d i n h e r i n d i v i d u a l a n d official capacities." With cited, So. regard to the state-law claims, Sheriff among o t h e r c a s e s , H e r e f o r d v . J e f f e r s o n 2d 209 ( A l a . 1991), s h e r i f f was e n t i t l e d i n which t o S t a t e immunity a g a i n s t him i n both h i s i n d i v i d u a l This Court this Court under Alexander County, held that a § 14 on c l a i m s and o f f i c i a l capacities. stated: " I n P a r k e r v . A m e r s o n , 519 So. 2d 442 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) , the E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t Court of Appeals asked t h i s C o u r t t o d e c i d e w h e t h e r a s h e r i f f i s an e m p l o y e e o f a county f o r purposes of holding the county vicariously liable. We h e l d t h a t a s h e r i f f i s an employee o f t h e s t a t e , r a t h e r than a c o u n t y , based on t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n : 'The 12 586 1111316 e x e c u t i v e d e p a r t m e n t s h a l l c o n s i s t o f a g o v e r n o r ... and a s h e r i f f f o r e a c h c o u n t y . ' A r t i c l e V, § 112, Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n of 1901. As executive o f f i c e r s , s h e r i f f s have s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i t y u n d e r A r t i c l e I , § 14, o f t h e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n , w h i c h r e a d s : ' [ T ] h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a s h a l l n e v e r be made a d e f e n d a n t i n any c o u r t o f l a w o r e q u i t y . ' The o n l y e x c e p t i o n s t o such immunity are f o r a c t i o n s brought against a s h e r i f f : "'(1) t o c o m p e l him t o p e r f o r m h i s d u t i e s , (2) t o c o m p e l him t o p e r f o r m m i n i s t e r i a l acts, (3) t o e n j o i n him f r o m e n f o r c i n g u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l laws, (4) t o e n j o i n him from a c t i n g i n bad f a i t h , f r a u d u l e n t l y , beyond h i s a u t h o r i t y , or under mistaken i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e l a w , o r (5) t o s e e k construction of a statute under the Declaratory Judgment A c t i f he is a necessary p a r t y f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the Statute.'" 586 So. 2d a t 210 added)). ( q u o t i n g P a r k e r , 519 Haywood and exceptions listed Hall have n o t i n Hereford to t h e i r claims t h e i r argument t h a t S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r i s n o t Similarly, for their immunity capacity. state-law claims against the As any f e d e r a l claims the United against Court the against to entitled her. authority A l e x a n d e r i s not e n t i t l e d States 13 of authority Haywood and H a l l have n o t c i t e d any argument t h a t S h e r i f f on cited any support the they argued t h a t (emphasis Alexander. i m m u n i t y on have 2d a t 443 Sheriff to Nor apply So. to her i n her official of Appeals for the 1111316 E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t has noted, c l a i m s a g a i n s t a s h e r i f f i n h i s o r her by See official c a p a c i t y made p u r s u a n t t o § 1983 a r e p r o h i b i t e d t h e E l e v e n t h Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d Dean v . B a r b e r , States C o n s t i t u t i o n . 951 F.2d 1210, 1215 n.5 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1992) ("Dean's s u i t , t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t i t a t t e m p t s t o h o l d Bailey or other Department 1983, liable i s barred S t a t e o f Alabama. official members of the J e f f e r s o n i n their because official County capacity the s h e r i f f s Sheriff Sheriff's under section a r e employees Dean's s u i t a g a i n s t t h e s h e r i f f s of the i n their c a p a c i t y , t h e r e f o r e , i s p r o h i b i t e d by t h e E l e v e n t h Amendment b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e o f Alabama i s t h e r e a l party i n interest."). Haywood a n d H a l l have n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t t h e c i r c u i t court erred i n dismissing the f e d e r a l claims Alexander against Sheriff capacities. be i n her o f f i c i a l Alexander Therefore, affirmed with regard capacity against or the state-law i n her o f f i c i a l and Sheriff claims individual t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i s due t o t o those 14 claims. 1111316 Haywood and H a l l a l s o a r g u e t h a t S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y on the her This i n her individual capacity. 2 f e d e r a l claims C o u r t has against stated: "'[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are s h i e l d e d f r o m l i a b i l i t y f o r c i v i l damages i n s o f a r as t h e i r c o n d u c t does n o t v i o l a t e clearly established statutory or c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s of which a r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n w o u l d have known.' " H a r l o w v. F i t z g e r a l d , 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S. C t . 2727, 73 L. Ed. 2d 396 ( 1 9 8 2 ) . ' Q u a l i f i e d immunity i s d e s i g n e d t o a l l o w government o f f i c i a l s t o a v o i d t h e e x p e n s e and d i s r u p t i o n o f g o i n g t o t r i a l , and i s n o t m e r e l y a d e f e n s e t o l i a b i l i t y . ' H a r d y v. Town o f H a y n e v i l l e , 50 F. Supp. 2d 1176, 1189 (M.D. Ala. 1999) . 'An official i s e n t i t l e d to qualified i m m u n i t y i f he i s p e r f o r m i n g d i s c r e t i o n a r y f u n c t i o n s and h i s a c t i o n s do " ' n o t v i o l a t e c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d statutory or c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s of which a r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n w o u l d have known.'"' H a r d y , 50 F. Supp. 2d a t 1189 (quoting Lancaster v. Monroe C o u n t y , 116 F.3d 1419, 1424 (11th C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) ) . "'While the defense of q u a l i f i e d immunity is typically addressed at the summary j u d g m e n t s t a g e o f a c a s e , i t may be, as i t was i n t h i s c a s e , r a i s e d and c o n s i d e r e d on a motion to d i s m i s s . See Chesser v. S p a r k s , 248 F.3d 1117, 1121 (11th C i r . Haywood and H a l l a r g u e t h a t S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y on any o f t h e c l a i m s a g a i n s t her. B e c a u s e we have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t she i s e n t i t l e d t o i m m u n i t y on t h e f e d e r a l c l a i m s a g a i n s t h e r i n h e r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y and on a l l s t a t e - l a w c l a i m s a g a i n s t h e r , o u r a n a l y s i s w i t h regard to q u a l i f i e d immunity i s l i m i t e d to the f e d e r a l c l a i m s a g a i n s t S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r i n her i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y . 2 15 1111316 2001). The m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s w i l l be granted i f the "complaint f a i l s t o allege the v i o l a t i o n o f a c l e a r l y established constitutional right." Id. (citing W i l l i a m s v. A l a . S t a t e U n i v . , 102 F.3d 1179, 1182 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) ) . W h e t h e r t h e c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e s such a v i o l a t i o n i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w t h a t we r e v i e w de novo, accepting the facts alleged i n the complaint as true and drawing a l l reasonable inferences i n the p l a i n t i f f ' s favor. I d . ' " Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Dep't o f Y o u t h S e r v s . , 880 So. 2d a t 402-03 (quoting 285 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th S t . George v. P i n e l l a s C n t y . , C i r . 2002) I n Ex p a r t e Court addressed, director Walter (emphasis Alabama Department o f Youth among o t h e r o f t h e Department Wood, supervisory resulting J r . , could responsibility from employees w h i l e omitted)). sexual things, whether o f Youth be liable under executive a theory of plaintiffs committed b y DYS were i n t h e c u s t o d y o f DYS. "The [ m i n o r ] p l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e d a c l a i m a g a i n s t Wood under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 f o r d e l i b e r a t e indifference to their 'right[s] to personal safety, s e c u r i t y and p r i v a c y , g u a r a n t e e d by t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment' w h i l e Wood was ' a c t i n g u n d e r c o l o r o f s t a t e l a w . ' The [ m i n o r ] p l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e d t h a t Wood ' f a i l e d t o d e v e l o p , i m p l e m e n t o r a d m i n i s t e r 16 this ("DYS"), J . t o minor allegedly the minor p l a i n t i f f s the Services forinjuries assaults Services, 1111316 procedures or p o l i c i e s reasonably designed to p r o v i d e p r o t e c t i o n f o r t h e minor P l a i n t i f f s from s e x u a l harassment and abuse'; f a i l e d 'to prevent male e m p l o y e e s o f DYS f r o m s e x u a l l y a b u s i n g a n d harassing them'; failed 'to i n v e s t i g a t e prior c o m p l a i n t s ' a g a i n s t [ c e r t a i n employees]; and f a i l e d 'to p r o t e c t t h e P l a i n t i f f s f r o m harm a n d f r o m f u r t h e r harm a f t e r [Wood] r e c e i v e d n o t i c e o f t h e s e x u a l h a r a s s m e n t a n d abuse a n d t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r s e x u a l h a r a s s m e n t o f ' them." 880 So. 2d a t 397. Wood moved t o d i s m i s s his the f e d e r a l claims against him i n i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y "on t h e g r o u n d [ ] o f f e d e r a l q u a l i f i e d immunity." I d . After reviewing t h e r e l e v a n t law, this Court concluded: "The [minor] plaintiffs' complaint alleges Wood's v i o l a t i o n of t h e i r clearly established c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o 'bodily i n t e g r i t y ' pursuant t o t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d States Constitution. The [ m i n o r ] p l a i n t i f f s ' complaint f u r t h e r a l l e g e s t h a t Wood f a i l e d 'to p r o t e c t the p l a i n t i f f s f r o m harm a n d f r o m f u r t h e r harm a f t e r he r e c e i v e d n o t i c e o f t h e s e x u a l h a r a s s m e n t a n d abuse and the p o t e n t i a l f o r sexual harassment' ... c o m m i t t e d b y DYS e m p l o y e e s a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f s . T h e r e f o r e , Wood h a s n o t shown a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o a d i s m i s s a l o f t h e [ m i n o r ] p l a i n t i f f s ' § 1983 c l a i m on t h e g r o u n d o f f e d e r a l q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y . " 880 So. 2d a t 403 ( c i t a t i o n a n d e m p h a s i s Here, S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r , like omitted). Wood, a r g u e d t h a t s h e was e n t i t l e d t o q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y on t h e f e d e r a l c l a i m s her i n her i n d i v i d u a l capacity. 17 against However, Haywood a n d H a l l ' s 1111316 counterclaim, like Youth S e r v i c e s , act the complaint alleged that i n Ex p a r t e Department o f S h e r i f f Alexander's failure to l e d to a v i o l a t i o n of t h e i r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s . alleged, among o t h e r They things: "35. [ S h e r i f f ] A l e x a n d e r , a c t i n g under c o l o r o f s t a t e l a w w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g p r e s c r i b e d b y 42 U.S.C. § 1983, [was] d e l i b e r a t e l y i n d i f f e r e n t t o t h e P l a i n t i f f s ' s a f e t y i n t h a t [she] had knowledge t h a t H a l l a n d Haywood were b e i n g s u b j e c t e d t o s e x u a l a s s a u l t on an o n g o i n g a n d c o n t i n u o u s b a s i s w h i l e i n the custody o f [ S h e r i f f Alexander] y e t d i d not take appropriate action. [Sheriff Alexander], despite knowledge o f customs and p r a c t i c e s o f t h e C l a y County j a i l i n t h e e x p l o i t a t i o n o f i t s inmates and the o p p o r t u n i t y c r e a t e d t h e r e b y f o r abuse, d i d n o t take appropriate a c t i o n t o p r e v e n t s u c h abuse a n d d i d thereby deprive the P l a i n t i f f s of t h e i r r i g h t s a g a i n s t c r u e l and u n u s u a l punishment, i n v a s i o n o f t h e i r r i g h t t o p r i v a c y a n d b o d i l y i n t e g r i t y a n d due process rights under the Fourth, Eighth and F o u r t e e n t h Amendment t o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i n v i o l a t i o n o f 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. " "38. [ S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r ] [has] c o n s i s t e n t l y acted with deliberate indifference to the safety needs o f i n m a t e s i n t h e c o u n t y j a i l , i n c l u d i n g H a l l and Haywood, b y v i o l a t i n g c l e a r l y established s t a t u t o r y and/or c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s o f which a r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n w o u l d know a n d t h a t s u c h v i o l a t i o n d i r e c t l y c a u s e d [Haywood a n d H a l l ] t o be s u b j e c t e d to s e x u a l a s s a u l t and e x p l o i t a t i o n i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e i r due p r o c e s s r i g h t s t o be f r e e f r o m c r u e l a n d u n u s u a l punishment and u n l a w f u l i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y and b o d i l y i n t e g r i t y . " 18 1111316 Thus, Haywood and H a l l , l i k e the Alabama Department of m i n o r p l a i n t i f f s i n Ex Youth S e r v i c e s , v i o l a t i o n of a c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d So. 2d at 402, shown a clear Hall's] § 1983 i m m u n i t y . " 880 Similarly, and, legal claim[s] So. 2d i n Ex at to on allege[d] constitutional therefore, right "[have] Sheriff parte right," Alexander a dismissal of the ground of federal "has [Haywood's the 880 not and qualified 403. parte Hale, (Ala. 2008), Emma J e a n J e n k i n s , r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e e s t a t e of B e l i n d a Denise Hodge, a l l e g e d , t h a t S h e r i f f Mike Hale's among o t h e r t h i n g s , f a i l u r e to a d e q u a t e l y t r a i n the jail This Court 3d s t a f f of the p r o x i m a t e l y caused v i o l a t i o n s rights. 6 So. 452 Jefferson o f Hodge's County constitutional stated: " J e n k i n s was r e q u i r e d t o p l e a d t h a t S h e r i f f H a l e ' s 'improper "custom or policy ... resulted in deliberate indifference to constitutional rights[.]"' H a r t l e y [v. P a r n e l l ] , 193 F.3d [1263,] 1269 [(11th C i r . 1999)]. In her c o m p l a i n t , J e n k i n s a l l e g e s t h a t ' [ S h e r i f f H a l e ] ... had p o l i c i e s a n d / o r c u s t o m s i n p l a c e t h a t c a u s e d m e d i c a l t r e a t m e n t t o be d e n i e d t o i n m a t e s o f t h e C o u n t y J a i l ' and t h a t 'the f a i l u r e of [ S h e r i f f Hale] ... to c o r r e c t these policies and/or customs ... enabled Sheriff's D e p u t i e s , j a i l p e r s o n n e l and/or m e d i c a l p e r s o n n e l to d e p r i v e Hodge ... o f [her] c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s . ' J e n k i n s ' s b r i e f , E x h i b i t B. Jenkins's 'complaint allege[s] the v i o l a t i o n of a c l e a r l y established constitutional right.' Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f Y o u t h S e r v i c e s , 880 So. 2d a t 402. Therefore, at 19 1111316 t h i s stage of the proceedings, S h e r i f f Hale i s not e n t i t l e d t o a d i s m i s s a l o f J e n k i n s ' s § 1983 c l a i m a g a i n s t h i m b a s e d on q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y and, t h u s , i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o mandamus r e l i e f on t h i s i s s u e . " Ex p a r t e Hale, 6 So. 3d a t 462-63. Haywood a n d H a l l , like Jenkins, have a l l e g e d that "[Sheriff Alexander], acting with deliberate i n d i f f e r e n c e , among o t h e r t h i n g s , f a i l e d t o d e v e l o p and i m p l e m e n t a d e q u a t e p o l i c i e s a n d p r o c e d u r e s and f a i l e d t o t r a i n p e r s o n n e l under [her] s u p e r v i s i o n , with the foreseeable r e s u l t t h a t i n m a t e s s u c h as H a l l and Haywood w o u l d be e x p l o i t e d a n d a b u s e d f o r sexual g r a t i f i c a t i o n . " Haywood a n d H a l l have also alleged abuse, e m o t i o n a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l that harm, p a i n "[t]he sexual and s u f f e r i n g i n f l i c t e d upon Haywood a n d [ H a l l ] i s d i r e c t l y a t t r i b u t a b l e t o the customs and/or p o l i c i e s Sheriff of [ S h e r i f f Alexander]" and t h a t Alexander " f a i l e d t o d e v e l o p and implement adequate p o l i c i e s and p r o c e d u r e s f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f a n d s a f e t y o f i n m a t e s e n t r u s t e d i n t o [ h e r ] c u s t o d y s u c h as t o p r o t e c t i n m a t e s f r o m t h e abuse a l l e g e d h e r e i n a n d f a i l e d to t r a i n personnel regarding the proper h a n d l i n g o f inmates and t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f r e p o r t i n g m i s c o n d u c t by c o r r e c t i o n o f f i c e r s t h a t i m p a c t s o r jeopardizes inmate safety. These longstanding systematic failures constitute policies and/or customs of [ S h e r i f f Alexander] that made i t f o r e s e e a b l e t h a t s e x u a l e x p l o i t a t i o n a n d abuse o f Hall a n d Haywood w o u l d o c c u r a t t h e hands o f [Cotney], t h e r e b y d e p r i v i n g H a l l a n d Haywood o f t h e i r r i g h t s a g a i n s t c r u e l and u n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t , invasion of t h e i r right to privacy and b o d i l y 20 1111316 i n t e g r i t y and due p r o c e s s r i g h t s u n d e r t h e F o u r t h , Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment[s] to the C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i n v i o l a t i o n o f 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Viewing the allegations s t r o n g l y i n [Haywood's and a t 299, in we fact, conclude in the counterclaim "most H a l l ' s ] f a v o r , " Nance, 622 t h a t the c o u n t e r c l a i m i n t h i s allege violations 2d case does, rights set f o r t h i n t h e F o u r t h , E i g h t h , and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments o f the United States C o n s t i t u t i o n . Therefore, "at t h i s stage of the proceedings, Sheriff not dismissal [the] of constitutional [Alexander] § q u a l i f i e d immunity." Finally, of the So. 1983 is claim[s] against Ex p a r t e H a l e , Haywood and Hall 6 So. argue r e q u i r e d t o c o m p l y w i t h any h e i g h t e n e d c l a i m s made p u r s u a n t t o § 1983. v. C o u n t y o f E s c a m b i a , 132 F.3d Alexander [her] 3d a t that to a based on 463. were not p l e a d i n g standards for C i t i n g GJR 1359 entitled they Investments, (11th C i r . 1998), argued t h a t " [ t ] h e Counterclaimants' Inc. Sheriff c l a i m s under § 1983 a r e a l s o due t o be d i s m i s s e d as t h o s e c l a i m s f a i l t o meet the heightened pleading standard required for properly Court stated in p l e a d i n g such c l a i m s . " However, as Haywood and Ex p a r t e H a l e t h a t t h e H a l l note, Court 21 this 1111316 "'"may r e l y on a d e c i s i o n o f any f e d e r a l c o u r t , b u t i t i s b o u n d by t h e d e c i s i o n s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t . " ' B e c a u s e we a r e n o t b o u n d by t h e decisions of the Eleventh Circuit and because Sheriff Hale has not asked us to adopt the 'heightened pleading standard' a p p l i e d by the E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t , we do n o t a d d r e s s w h e t h e r t h i s s t a n d a r d i s a p p l i c a b l e u n d e r A l a b a m a l a w , n o r do we apply such a heightened p l e a d i n g s t a n d a r d i n t h i s case." 6 So. Ins. 3d Co., at 663 458 n.5 So. ( q u o t i n g Weems v. 2d 905, p a r t e G u r g a n u s , 603 So. concurring specially) S h e r i f f Alexander and has pleading thus not Life ( A l a . 1995), q u o t i n g i n t u r n 2d 903, 908 ( A l a . 1992) (Shores, J., has not this filed Court f o r § 1983 a brief with this to claims. adopt any Court heightened Therefore, we do not a p p l y any s u c h s t a n d a r d i n t h i s c a s e , and S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r not entitled to have Ex (emphasis o m i t t e d ) ) . asked standards 913 Jefferson-Pilot the § 1983 claims dismissed on is that basis. Conclusion Haywood and H a l l have n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d any error in the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n to d i s m i s s the f e d e r a l c l a i m s a g a i n s t S h e r i f f Alexander claims against capacities. i n her her in Therefore, official both her the c a p a c i t y or the official circuit 22 and court's state-law individual judgment is 1111316 a f f i r m e d i n s o f a r as i t d i s m i s s e d the those reasons s e t f o r t h i n t h i s o p i n i o n , proceedings claims. However, f o r at this stage of the S h e r i f f Alexander i s not e n t i t l e d to a d i s m i s s a l of t h e f e d e r a l c l a i m s a g a i n s t h e r i n h e r i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y . Therefore, we reverse the c i r c u i t court's judgment r e g a r d a n d remand t h e c a s e f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s with this 3 i n that consistent opinion. AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED I N PART; AND REMANDED. Moore, C . J . , a n d B o l i n , M u r d o c k , a n d M a i n , J J . , c o n c u r . T h i s o p i n i o n does n o t a d d r e s s t h e m e r i t s o f t h e c l a i m s against S h e r i f f Alexander. N o r does " [ o ] u r o p i n i o n i n t h i s c a s e ... a d d r e s s any d e f e n s e o t h e r t h a n [ S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r ' s ] c l a i m s o f i m m u n i t y ... [ o r ] f o r e c l o s e a r e a s s e r t i o n o f t h e i m m u n i t y c l a i m s b y way o f a m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t a f t e r appropriate discovery." Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Dep't o f Y o u t h S e r v s . , 880 So. 2d a t 405. 3 23
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.
