Williams Group Home v. AL Dept. of Mental Health, No. 08-10252 (11th Cir. 2008)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT July 30, 2008 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK No. 08-10252 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 06-00760-CV-1-CG-C WILLIAMS GROUP HOME, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH & MENTAL RETARDATION, a public agency, ERANELL MCINTOSH-WILSON, individually, JERRYLN LONDON, individually, FORDYCE MITCHEL, individually, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama ________________________ (July 30, 2008) Before BIRCH, DUBINA and COX, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The district court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 80), and the Plaintiff appeals. The Plaintiff contends that the district court erred in granting the Defendants summary judgment on the Plaintiff's Due Process claim, and that the district court erred in granting the Defendants summary judgment on the Equal Protection claim (Blue Br. at 1). The district court held that the Alabama Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, a state agency, was not a "person" subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 1981 and 1983. The Plaintiff does not challenge this holding on appeal. Therefore, we address only the Plaintiff s claims against the Defendants in their individual capacities. Having considered the briefs and relevant parts of the record, we find no reversible error. We conclude that the Defendants were due summary judgment on the Due Process claim because, if process was due (which we need not decide), Alabama law afforded it. And, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment on the Equal Protection claim because there was no showing that facilities treated differently were similarly situated. AFFIRMED. 2

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.