Garry Bearden v. Virgil H. Coker et al. (Appeal from Calhoun Circuit Court: CV-10-900418) Application For Rehearing Overruled.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL:
6/22/12
Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance
s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s ,
Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s ,
300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1
((334)
2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made
b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r .
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL
APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012
2110543
Garry Bearden
v.
V i r g i l H. Coker e t a l .
Appeal from Calhoun C i r c u i t
(CV-10-900418)
Court
On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g
BRYAN, J u d g e .
This
April
court's
no-opinion
13, 2012, i s withdrawn,
substituted therefor.
order
of affirmance
i s s u e d on
and t h e f o l l o w i n g o p i n i o n i s
2110543
On
January
supreme c o u r t
26,
2011,
Garry
their
appealed
to
the
f r o m a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f V i r g i l
C o k e r , C a r o l y n H e n d e r s o n , and
in
Bearden
official
Jimmy O ' D e l l ,
capacities
as
members
H.
individually
of
the
and
Board
of
R e g i s t r a r s o f C a l h o u n C o u n t y ( c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d t o as
"the
b o a r d members"), and t h e B o a r d o f R e g i s t r a r s o f C a l h o u n C o u n t y
("the
the
board").
appeal
until
pursuant to §
This
court
The
supreme c o u r t m a i n t a i n e d
i t t r a n s f e r r e d the
appeal
its
April
original
affirmance,
on
13,
application
for
application
for rehearing,
affirmance,
substitute this
rehearing
and
April
September
15,
2010,
opinion,
was
titled
Article
I,
"Complaint
Sections
6
under
and
filed
We
affirm
the
his
grant
no-opinion
and
sued
the
order
the
of
summary
board.
the
board
and
C o n s t i t u t i o n of
alleged
e l e c t e d mayor o f Weaver i n 2008; t h a t , on
2
no-opinion
the
o r i g i n a l complaint"), which
Alabama
12,"
a
History
Bearden
b o a r d members. H i s c o m p l a i n t ( " t h e
2012.
2012.
j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e b o a r d members and
On
court
Bearden
27,
withdraw the
Procedural
this
decision,
2012,
on
to
over
on M a r c h 13,
1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975,
issued
jurisdiction
that
he
1901,
had
been
S e p t e m b e r 3,
2010,
2110543
he h a d r e c e i v e d a l e t t e r f r o m t h e b o a r d i n f o r m i n g
had
received
a
complaint
asserting
that
him t h a t i t
h i s domicile f o r
v o t i n g p u r p o s e s s h o u l d be c h a n g e d f r o m h i s h o u s e i n Weaver t o
his
farmhouse
complaint,
i n Anniston,
that
i t had
investigated
the
and t h a t h i s v o t i n g d o m i c i l e had been changed from
h i s h o u s e i n Weaver t o h i s f a r m h o u s e i n A n n i s t o n ;
that
that
change i n h i s v o t i n g d o m i c i l e w o u l d r e n d e r h i m i n e l i g i b l e t o
s e r v e a s mayor o f Weaver; t h a t t h e b o a r d a n d t h e b o a r d members
had
changed h i s v o t i n g d o m i c i l e w r o n g f u l l y
him
notice
a n d an o p p o r t u n i t y
and w i t h o u t g i v i n g
t o be h e a r d ; a n d t h a t ,
"under
t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f A l a b a m a , A r t i c l e I , S e c t i o n s 6 a n d 12, he
has
a
constitutionally
position
a s mayor
protected
o f Weaver."
1
liberty
Based
interest
on t h o s e a l l e g a t i o n s ,
Bearden s t a t e d a c l a i m t h a t , by c h a n g i n g h i s v o t i n g
w i t h o u t g i v i n g h i m n o t i c e a n d an o p p o r t u n i t y
board
and t h e b o a r d
process
guaranteed
members
had d e p r i v e d
to the c i t i z e n s
inhis
domicile
t o be h e a r d , t h e
h i m o f t h e "due
o f Alabama
under
the
Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901, A r t i c l e I , S e c t i o n s 6 and 1 [ 2 ] . "
B e a r d e n c o n c e d e s on p a g e s 2 a n d 13-14 o f h i s r e p l y b r i e f
t h a t , w h i l e t h i s a p p e a l was p e n d i n g , he r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e
b o a r d change h i s v o t i n g d o m i c i l e b a c k t o h i s h o u s e i n Weaver
and t h a t t h e b o a r d d i d s o .
1
3
2110543
As r e l i e f , t h e o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t
an
attorney
fee,
costs,
and
s o u g h t c o m p e n s a t o r y damages,
an
order
setting
aside
d e c i s i o n changing h i s v o t i n g d o m i c i l e . His o r i g i n a l
did
not
allege
him
deprived
that
any
of
the
board
rights
and
c l a i m was
board
g u a r a n t e e d t o him
S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n or f e d e r a l law,
his
the
and
the
complaint
members
by
the
had
United
i t d i d not s t a t e t h a t
b e i n g b r o u g h t p u r s u a n t t o 42 U.S.C. § 1983
("§
1983") .
On S e p t e m b e r 20, 2010,
("the
B e a r d e n f i l e d an amended
f i r s t amended c o m p l a i n t " ) . The
which
was
titled
"First
C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901,
Amended
original
a l l material respects, identical
filed
October
19,
Complaint
under
2010,
the
a R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , A l a . R.
complaint
to the o r i g i n a l
board
and
C i v . P.,
the
from the
the
t r i a l court
the
board
1975,
and
Alabama
corrected
but
was,
members
motion to dismiss
the
subject-matter
board
members
said,
jurisdiction
§
4
that
because,
17-4-3, A l a .
v e s t e d i n the probate c o u r t s u b j e c t - m a t t e r
on
unauthorized
d e c i s i o n changing h i s v o t i n g d o m i c i l e ;
lacked
in
complaint.
board
t h e g r o u n d s t h a t B e a r d e n ' s a c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e d an
appeal
complaint,
A r t i c l e I , S e c t i o n s 6 and 12,"
a t y p o g r a p h i c a l e r r o r i n the
On
f i r s t amended
complaint
Code
jurisdiction
2110543
over
appeals
B e a r d e n had
and
that
immunity
from
already
the
under
(3)
and
(1)
of
court
an
appeal
board
Article
(2)
Eleventh
with
domiciles
the
probate
members were
I,
the
voting
§
14,
of
doctrine
Amendment
to
the
entitled
the
of
entered
an
i m m u n i t y . On
order
an
Bearden
to
exhibit.
In
his
1983
response,
v o t i n g d o m i c i l e . Rather,
action
d e p r i v i n g him
against
of
due
the
file
(5)
the
a
2010.
Bearden f i l e d a w r i t t e n response to
Bearden
a c t i o n d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e an a p p e a l
his
States
2010,
t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s w i t h an a f f i d a v i t s i g n e d by him
as
Alabama
United
r e s p o n s e t o t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s by November 10,
On November 10, 2010,
to
state-agent
O c t o b e r 20,
directing
and
court;
(4) t h e d o c t r i n e o f q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y , and
d o c t r i n e of j u d i c i a l
trial
changing
the
1901,
the
Constitution,
the
filed
board
Constitution
immunity,
decisions
asserted
attached
that
from the d e c i s i o n changing
B e a r d e n s a i d , h i s a c t i o n was
board
process.
and
The
e x h i b i t to Bearden's response
the
board
affidavit
members
attached
as
stated:
"My name i s G a r r y B e a r d e n . I am o v e r t h e age o f
19 y e a r s and I am q u a l i f i e d t o g i v e t h i s a f f i d a v i t .
My d o m i c i l e has b e e n i n t h e C i t y o f Weaver, A l a b a m a
f o r my e n t i r e a d u l t l i f e . I p u r c h a s e d and have owned
and o c c u p i e d f o r t h i r t y - t h r e e y e a r s t h e
property
l o c a t e d a t 1200 R i d g e D r i v e , Weaver, A l a b a m a 36277.
5
his
a §
for
an
2110543
My t h r e e c h i l d r e n grew up i n t h a t h o u s e . They e a c h
a t t e n d e d Weaver H i g h S c h o o l w h i l e l i v i n g i n t h a t
h o u s e . I c o n t i n u e t o own and o c c u p y t h a t p r o p e r t y a t
t h e p r e s e n t t i m e . I have n e v e r i n t e n d e d t o abandon
t h a t p r o p e r t y as my d o m i c i l e . I have n e v e r i n t e n d e d
t o l e a v e i t w i t h any i n t e n t i o n n o t t o r e t u r n t o i t .
" I n a d d i t i o n , my b u s i n e s s i s l o c a t e d i n Weaver,
A l a b a m a a t 207-209 E a s t R a i l r o a d S t r e e t . I a l s o have
a r e s i d e n t i a l a p a r t m e n t l o c a t e d a t 209 E a s t R a i l r o a d
S t r e e t w h i c h I o c c u p y f r o m t i m e t o t i m e . My e n t i r e
l i f e i s i n v e s t e d i n Weaver, A l a b a m a , as I am a l s o
t h e mayor o f t h a t town. I n summary, my home f o r
t h i r t y - t h r e e y e a r s , my b u s i n e s s , and an a p a r t m e n t
t h a t I use from time t o time are a l l l o c a t e d i n
Weaver, A l a b a m a .
" A p p r o x i m a t e l y o n e - h a l f m i l e from the p r o p e r t y
a t 1200 R i d g e D r i v e i s a h o b b y f a r m t h a t I have
p u r c h a s e d i n A n n i s t o n , A l a b a m a , a t an a d d r e s s
of
6511 Weaver Road. Once my c h i l d r e n l e f t home, and
due t o p r o s p e r i t y i n my b u s i n e s s , I became a b l e t o
a c q u i r e a f a r m f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f i n d u l g i n g i n my
h o b b y as an a m a t e u r f a r m e r . I b u i l t a house on t h i s
p r o p e r t y . Sometimes I occupy t h a t house. Sometimes
I o c c u p y t h e h o u s e a t 1200 R i d g e D r i v e , Weaver,
Alabama.
" I am i n t h e b u s i n e s s o f b u i l d i n g and r e m o d e l i n g
s t o r e s throughout the southeastern U n i t e d S t a t e s . I
attempt
t o be b a c k i n one
o f my
homes o r
my
a p a r t m e n t e a c h n i g h t , t h o u g h I am u s u a l l y a b s e n t
d u r i n g t h e day u n l e s s I have d u t i e s t o p e r f o r m as
mayor o f t h e C i t y o f Weaver. P e r s o n s
who
have
commented on t h e t i m e I s p e n t a t t h i s o r t h a t h o u s e
a r e p r o b a b l y unaware o f my a p a r t m e n t . I n any e v e n t ,
my b u s i n e s s a b s e n c e s m i g h t w e l l a p p e a r t o o t h e r s t o
be an a b s e n c e f r o m one o r t h e o t h e r o f my h o u s e s .
" I was
accused
i n 2008 d u r i n g my
race f o r
e l e c t i o n as mayor o f Weaver, A l a b a m a o f
living
s o m e p l a c e o t h e r t h a n Weaver, A l a b a m a . M r s . S h e i l a
6
2110543
F i e l d , my o p p o n e n t i n t h a t 2008 m a y o r a l e l e c t i o n ,
c o n s t a n t l y r a i s e d t h i s matter.
The
city council
requested
an a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s
o p i n i o n on
the
p o i n t . I t s t a t e d t h a t t h e l o c a t i o n o f my
residence
was a m a t t e r o f f a c t and t h a t t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l
c o u l d g i v e no o p i n i o n on where i t was l o c a t e d , b u t
recommended an e l e c t i o n c o n t e s t by t h o s e who
truly
questioned
my d o m i c i l e b e i n g i n Weaver, A l a b a m a
(Copy o f o p i n i o n a t t a c h e d h e r e t o ) .
However, t h e r e
was no e l e c t i o n c o n t e s t f i l e d d u r i n g t h e e l e c t i o n o r
a f t e r my v i c t o r y .
[ 2 ]
" T h e r e was
no m e n t i o n o f my d o m i c i l e
being
l o c a t e d o u t s i d e o f Weaver, t o my k n o w l e d g e , a f t e r my
election
as
M a y o r o f Weaver, A l a b a m a u n t i l
I
q u a l i f i e d t o run f o r the Alabama S t a t e L e g i s l a t u r e
a g a i n s t the Republican
establishment
choice
and
l o n g t i m e c o u n t y c o m m i s s i o n e r and l e g i s l a t o r , Randy
Wood. Once i t a p p e a r e d t h a t I was r u n n i n g e v e n w i t h
o r a h e a d o f Mr. Wood i n t h a t e l e c t i o n , t h e n t h e
d o m i c i l e i s s u e was once a g a i n r a i s e d by my p o l i t i c a l
opponents.
" I r e c e i v e d a l e t t e r from the Calhoun County
B o a r d o f R e g i s t r a r s s t a t i n g t h a t i t had r e c e i v e d a
c o m p l a i n t a b o u t my d o m i c i l e b e i n g l o c a t e d o u t s i d e o f
Weaver, A l a b a m a , had i n v e s t i g a t e d t h a t
complaint,
and had d e c i d e d t o change my d o m i c i l e t o a p l a c e
o u t s i d e o f Weaver. I had a b s o l u t e l y no n o t i c e and no
o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e s o - c a l l e d
c o m p l a i n t , i n v e s t i g a t i o n , o r d e c i s i o n . I do n o t know
who made t h e c o m p l a i n t o r what was c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e
b o a r d i n r e a c h i n g i t s d e c i s i o n . I do know t h a t none
of
my
family,
i n c l u d i n g me,
was
i n any
way
consulted,
questioned,
or
allowed
t o make
any
s t a t e m e n t w i t h r e g a r d t o where our home i s l o c a t e d . "
On
December
3,
2010,
the
The a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s
Bearden's a f f i d a v i t .
board
opinion
2
7
and
is
the
not
board
members
attached
to
2110543
filed
an
amended m o t i o n
additional
On
argument
December
21,
in
to
dismiss
support
2010,
of
Bearden
i n which
they
presented
t h e i r immunity
defenses.
filed
a
second
c o m p l a i n t , w h i c h a d d e d a c l a i m p u r s u a n t t o § 1983.
amended
That
claim
stated:
" P l a i n t i f f a v e r s t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t s have v i o l a t e d
his
due
process
rights
under
the
Fifth
and
Fourteenth
Amendments
to
the
United
States
C o n s t i t u t i o n and b r i n g s t h i s a c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
P l a i n t i f f c l a i m s of the Defendants
c o m p e n s a t o r y damages, a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s and c o s t s . "
( E m p h a s i s added.)
Following
a hearing,
t h e t r i a l c o u r t , on J a n u a r y 5,
e n t e r e d a judgment s t a t i n g :
"The P l a i n t i f f has f i l e d t h i s a c t i o n a s s e r t i n g
an a c t i o n u n d e r 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The
Plaintiff
a l l e g e s t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t s have d e p r i v e d him o f h i s
r i g h t t o v o t e i n t h e C i t y o f Weaver w i t h o u t
due
p r o c e s s o f law. The P l a i n t i f f has s e t f o r t h i n h i s
b r i e f i n response to the
Defendants' Motion
to
D i s m i s s a l l e g i n g t h a t t h i s a c t i o n i s n o t an a p p e a l .
However, t h e C o u r t does n o t see how i t can be v i e w e d
as a n y t h i n g b u t an a p p e a l o f t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e
Board
of
Registrars.
He
has
alleged
that
the
d e c i s i o n o f t h e B o a r d o f R e g i s t r a r s i s i n c o r r e c t and
i s a s k i n g t h i s Court to set aside the d e c i s i o n of
the Board of R e g i s t r a r s .
"The D e f e n d a n t s a l l e g e t h e y r e c e i v e d a c o m p l a i n t
about P l a i n t i f f ' s p l a c e
of r e s i d e n c e .
They a l s o
a l l e g e t h a t an i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o o k p l a c e and
they
c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e P l a i n t i f f l i v e d i n A n n i s t o n and
n o t Weaver. As a r e s u l t o f t h i s d e c i s i o n , t h e y s e n t
8
2011,
2110543
the
Plaintiff
a
letter
on
September
3,
2010
n o t i f y i n g h i m o f t h e r e s u l t s and t h e c h a n g i n g o f h i s
v o t i n g r e g i s t r a t i o n to the A n n i s t o n l o c a t i o n . For
clarification,
the
Plaintiff
has
not
been
d i s p o s s e s s e d o f h i s a b s o l u t e r i g h t t o v o t e . He s t i l l
p o s s e s s e s t h e r i g h t t o v o t e , however h i s l o c a t i o n o f
v o t i n g has b e e n c h a n g e .
" I t i s the understanding of t h i s Court t h a t the
P l a i n t i f f has f i l e d an a p p e a l o f t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e
Board of R e g i s t r a r s w i t h the Judge of Probate of
C a l h o u n C o u n t y as p r o v i d e d i n Code o f A l a b a m a §
17-3-55. S h o u l d t h e P l a i n t i f f be u n s u c c e s s f u l i n h i s
appeal to the Probate Court, the s t a t u t e a l l o w s f o r
an a p p e a l t o t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t w i t h i n a p r e s c r i b e d
t i m e p e r i o d . The P l a i n t i f f has c i t e d and a r g u e d a
number o f c a s e s a s s e r t i n g t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l may n o t
be
d e p r i v e d of
a protected right
without
an
o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d . The C o u r t a g r e e s w i t h t h i s
a r g u m e n t . The C o u r t a l s o b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e s t a t u t e
provides
the
necessary
'right
to
be
heard'
p r o t e c t i o n as a r g u e d by t h e P l a i n t i f f . The s t a t u t e
a s s u r e s by an a p p e a l t o C a l h o u n C o u n t y P r o b a t e C o u r t
t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n s r e q u i r e d by l a w . The
Plaintiff
i s presently
exercising
that
right.
Therefore,
this
Court
finds
no
denial
of
due
p r o c e s s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , a s s u m i n g a g a i n s t t h e argument
o f t h e P l a i n t i f f ' s t h a t t h i s i s n o t an a p p e a l u n d e r
§ 17-3-55 t h i s C o u r t i s w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n a t t h i s
time p r i o r t o a f i n a l r u l i n g from the Judge of
Probate of Calhoun County.
"Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss f i l e d
on
b e h a l f o f t h e D e f e n d a n t s i s h e r e b y GRANTED. T h i s
cause i s D i s m i s s e d w i t h p r e j u d i c e w i t h c o s t s t a x e d
as p a i d . "
On J a n u a r y
in
which
he
6,
2011,
( 1 ) again
Bearden
f i l e d a postjudgment
asserted that
his action
was
motion
not
an
a p p e a l , ( 2 ) a g a i n a s s e r t e d t h a t Alabama law d i d not a u t h o r i z e
9
2110543
an a p p e a l f r o m a d e c i s i o n c h a n g i n g a v o t e r ' s v o t i n g
(3)
notified
dismissed
the t r i a l
court
was a § 1983 a c t i o n
On J a n u a r y
postjudgment
and ( 4 ) a g a i n
rather
d e c i s i o n t o change h i s v o t i n g
than
court
had
motion.
asserted that h i s
an a p p e a l
from the
domicile.
10, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l
supreme c o u r t , w h i c h ,
to t h i s
the probate
h i s a p p e a l on t h e g r o u n d t h a t i t was n o t w i t h i n t h e
probate court's j u r i s d i c t i o n ,
action
that
domicile,
Bearden
then
court
denied
timely
Bearden's
appealed
to the
as n o t e d above, t r a n s f e r r e d t h e a p p e a l
c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) on M a r c h 13, 2012.
Standard o f Review
Bearden,
standard
t h e b o a r d , a n d t h e b o a r d members a s s e r t t h a t t h e
o f r e v i e w t o be a p p l i e d i n t h i s c a s e i s t h e s t a n d a r d
a p p l i c a b l e t o a judgment g r a n t i n g
d i s m i s s . However, B e a r d e n
the
motion
to
a Rule
12(b)(6) motion t o
f i l e d an a f f i d a v i t
dismiss,
and
the
trial
i n opposition to
court
d i d not
s p e c i f i c a l l y e x c l u d e t h a t a f f i d a v i t f r o m c o n s i d e r a t i o n when i t
r u l e d on t h e m o t i o n . When a p l a i n t i f f
trial
and
court
the
i n opposition
trial
court
presents
evidence to the
t o a defendant's motion
does
not
specifically
e v i d e n c e , we must assume t h a t t h e t r i a l
10
to dismiss
exclude
that
court considered
that
2110543
evidence
i n r u l i n g on t h e m o t i o n , w h i c h a u t o m a t i c a l l y c o n v e r t s
the motion to d i s m i s s i n t o
must r e v i e w
the
trial
a summary-judgment m o t i o n , and
court's
judgment g r a n t i n g t h a t
we
motion
u n d e r t h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w a p p l i c a b l e t o a summary j u d g m e n t .
See
T r a v i s v.
Ziter,
T r a v i s v. Z i t e r ,
681
So.
2d
1348,
681 So. 2d a t 1351,
1351
( A l a . 1996).
In
t h e supreme c o u r t s t a t e d :
"If
the
court
considers
matters
outside
the
p l e a d i n g s i n r u l i n g on t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n t o
d i s m i s s , then the motion i s converted i n t o a motion
f o r summary j u d g m e n t , r e g a r d l e s s o f how t h e m o t i o n
was s t y l e d . R u l e 1 2 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.;
Papastefan
v. B & L C o n s t r . Co., 356 So. 2d 158 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) .
The c i r c u i t c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g t o c o n s i d e r t h e
d e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s , and t h e [ p l a i n t i f f s ]
presented
affidavits
f r o m S t e v e T r a v i s and
the
c l i n i c a l p s y c h o l o g i s t who
had b e e n t r e a t i n g
him.
B e c a u s e t h e r e was no i n d i c a t i o n d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f
the
hearing,
or
i n the
c i r c u i t court's
order
d i s m i s s i n g the p l a i n t i f f [ s ' ] c l a i m s , t h a t the c o u r t
had e x c l u d e d t h e a f f i d a v i t s , we must assume t h a t t h e
c i r c u i t c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d them when i t r u l e d on t h e
m o t i o n s . Thus, we
must a n a l y z e
the motions
to
d i s m i s s u n d e r t h e summary j u d g m e n t s t a n d a r d .
Rule
1 2 ( b ) , A l a . R.
The
supreme
Civ.
court
P."
recited
the
a p p l i c a b l e t o a summary j u d g m e n t i n Dow
Party,
897
So.
2d 1035,
1038-39
standard
of
review
v. A l a b a m a D e m o c r a t i c
( A l a . 2004):
" T h i s C o u r t ' s r e v i e w o f a summary j u d g m e n t i s de
novo. W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e Farm Mut. A u t o . I n s . Co.,
886 So. 2d 72, 74 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . We a p p l y t h e same
s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w as t h e t r i a l
court applied.
S p e c i f i c a l l y , we must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e movant
11
2110543
has made a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t no g e n u i n e i s s u e
o f m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s and t h a t t h e movant i s
e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w .
Rule
5 6 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.; B l u e C r o s s & B l u e S h i e l d o f
A l a b a m a v. H o d u r s k i ,
899 So. 2d 949, 952-53 ( A l a .
2004). In making such a d e t e r m i n a t i o n ,
we
must
r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o
t h e nonmovant. W i l s o n v. Brown, 496 So. 2d 756,
758
(Ala.
1 9 8 6 ) . Once t h e movant makes a p r i m a f a c i e
s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l
f a c t , t h e b u r d e n t h e n s h i f t s t o t h e nonmovant t o
p r o d u c e ' s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ' as t o t h e e x i s t e n c e
of a genuine i s s u e
of m a t e r i a l
fact.
Bass
v.
S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f B a l d w i n C o u n t y , 538 So. 2d
794,
797-98 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; A l a . Code 1975,
§ 12-21-12.
' [ S ] u b s t a n t i a l evidence i s evidence of such weight
and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n s i n t h e e x e r c i s e
o f i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can
reasonably i n f e r
the
e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . ' West v.
F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r . Co. o f F l a . , 547 So. 2d
870,
871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . "
Analysis
Although
complaint,
be
the
original
complaint,
the
first
amended
and p o r t i o n s o f t h e s e c o n d amended c o m p l a i n t
construed
as
s t a t i n g claims
based
on
Alabama
law
could
rather
t h a n a c l a i m b a s e d on
§ 1983,
Bearden c o n s i s t e n t l y argued
the
he
stating a
trial
court
Likewise,
he has
a § 1983
claim only.
s t a t e d any
by
that
was
§
1983
claim
a r g u e d i n h i s b r i e f s on a p p e a l t h a t he
claim other
Therefore,
i n s o f a r as
t h a n a § 1983
B e a r d e n may
c l a i m , he
has
to
only.
stated
have
waived i t
(1) h i s f a i l u r e t o a r g u e i t t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t , see Andrews
12
2110543
v.
M e r r i t t O i l Co., 612 So. 2d 409, 410
Court cannot consider
appeal;
So.
an
arguments r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t
considered
by
the t r i a l
t o argue i t t o t h i s
court,
court."),
t i m e on
issue i n i t s brief,
Bearden
first
the board
and
(2) h i s
s e e B o s h e l l v. K e i t h , 418
2d 89, 92 ( A l a . 1982) ("When an a p p e l l a n t
granting
("This
r a t h e r , our r e v i e w i s r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e e v i d e n c e and
arguments
failure
( A l a . 1992)
fails
t o argue
that issue i s waived.").
argues
that
the
trial
court
a n d b o a r d members' m o t i o n
erred
on t h e g r o u n d
t h a t h i s a c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e d an a p p e a l t o t h e wrong c o u r t
the
decision
Alabama
changing h i s v o t i n g
domicile
l a w d i d n o t a f f o r d h i m an a p p e a l
in
b e c a u s e , he
from
says,
from t h e d e c i s i o n
c h a n g i n g h i s v o t i n g d o m i c i l e a n d h i s a c t i o n i s a § 1983 a c t i o n
r a t h e r t h a n an a p p e a l f r o m t h a t d e c i s i o n . We
Section
authorizing
That s t a t u t e
17-4-3,
the board
Ala.
Code
t o change
1975,
a voter's
agree.
is
the
voting
statute
domicile.
provides:
"Each c o u n t y b o a r d o f r e g i s t r a r s s h a l l p u r g e t h e
c o m p u t e r i z e d s t a t e w i d e v o t e r r e g i s t r a t i o n l i s t on a
c o n t i n u o u s b a s i s , whenever i t r e c e i v e s and c o n f i r m s
information that a person r e g i s t e r e d t o vote i n that
c o u n t y h a s d i e d , become a n o n r e s i d e n t o f t h e s t a t e
or county, been d e c l a r e d m e n t a l l y i n c o m p e t e n t , been
c o n v i c t e d o f any o f f e n s e m e n t i o n e d i n A r t i c l e V I I I
o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f A l a b a m a o f 1901 s i n c e b e i n g
13
2110543
r e g i s t e r e d , o r o t h e r w i s e become d i s q u a l i f i e d as an
e l e c t o r . A person convicted of a d i s q u a l i f y i n g
c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e must be n o t i f i e d b y c e r t i f i e d m a i l
s e n t t o t h e v o t e r ' s l a s t known a d d r e s s o f t h e
b o a r d ' s i n t e n t i o n t o s t r i k e h i s o r h e r name f r o m t h e
l i s t . No p e r s o n c o n v i c t e d o f a d i s q u a l i f y i n g c r i m e
may be s t r i c k e n f r o m t h e p o l l l i s t w h i l e an a p p e a l
from t h e c o n v i c t i o n i s pending.
"On t h e d a t e s e t i n t h e n o t i c e , o r a t a l a t e r
d a t e t o w h i c h t h e c a s e may have b e e n c o n t i n u e d b y
the b o a r d , t h e b o a r d s h a l l p r o c e e d t o c o n s i d e r t h e
c a s e o f t h e e l e c t o r whose name i t p r o p o s e s t o s t r i k e
from
the
registration
list
and
make i t s
d e t e r m i n a t i o n . Any p e r s o n whose name i s s t r i c k e n
f r o m t h e l i s t may a p p e a l f r o m t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e
b o a r d w i t h o u t g i v i n g s e c u r i t y f o r c o s t s , and t h e
board s h a l l f o r t h w i t h c e r t i f y the proceedings t o the
j u d g e o f p r o b a t e who s h a l l d o c k e t t h e c a s e i n t h e
probate court.
"An a p p e a l f r o m t h e j u d g e o f p r o b a t e s h a l l be as
a p p e a l s s e t f o r t h i n S e c t i o n 17-3-55.
"When
the board
has
sufficient
evidence
f u r n i s h e d i t t h a t a n y e l e c t o r h a s p e r m a n e n t l y moved
f r o m one p r e c i n c t t o a n o t h e r w i t h i n t h e c o u n t y , i t
s h a l l change t h e e l e c t o r ' s p r e c i n c t d e s i g n a t i o n i n
the
v o t e r r e g i s t r a t i o n l i s t , and s h a l l g i v e n o t i c e
by m a i l t o t h e e l e c t o r o f t h e p r e c i n c t i n which t h e
elector i s registered to vote."
(Emphasis
In
added.)
IMED C o r p . v . S y s t e m s E n g i n e e r i n g A s s o c i a t e s C o r p . ,
602 So. 2d 344, 346 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) , t h e supreme c o u r t s t a t e d :
"The f u n d a m e n t a l r u l e o f s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n
i s t o a s c e r t a i n and g i v e e f f e c t t o t h e i n t e n t o f t h e
l e g i s l a t u r e i n e n a c t i n g t h e s t a t u t e . Words u s e d i n
a s t a t u t e must be g i v e n t h e i r n a t u r a l ,
plain,
14
2110543
o r d i n a r y , a n d commonly u n d e r s t o o d m e a n i n g , a n d where
p l a i n language i s used a c o u r t i s bound t o i n t e r p r e t
t h a t l a n g u a g e t o mean e x a c t l y what i t s a y s . I f t h e
language o f t h e s t a t u t e i s unambiguous, then t h e r e
i s no room f o r j u d i c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d t h e c l e a r l y
e x p r e s s e d i n t e n t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e must be g i v e n
e f f e c t . T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y Comm'n v . D e p u t y S h e r i f f s '
A s s ' n o f T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y , 589 So. 2d 687 ( A l a .
1991)."
The
it
plain
l a n g u a g e o f § 17-4-3 i n d i c a t e s t h a t ,
a u t h o r i z e s an a p p e a l
although
t o t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t from a d e c i s i o n
s t r i k i n g a v o t e r ' s name f r o m t h e l i s t o f r e g i s t e r e d v o t e r s , i t
does
not authorize
an
appeal
from
a
decision
changing
a
v o t e r ' s v o t i n g d o m i c i l e . B e c a u s e § 17-4-3 d o e s n o t a u t h o r i z e
an a p p e a l
to
from a d e c i s i o n changing a v o t e r ' s v o t i n g
the probate
appeal
court
from
domicile
c o u r t , B e a r d e n ' s a c t i o n c a n n o t c o n s t i t u t e an
that
d e c i s i o n t o t h e wrong
court
as t h e t r i a l
concluded.
Although
erroneous,
the t r i a l
this
court,
here,
will
affirm
legal
ground presented
c o u r t ' s r a t i o n a l e f o r i t s judgment i s
subject
the t r i a l
to exceptions
court's
by t h e r e c o r d ,
t h a t g r o u n d was c o n s i d e r e d ,
judgment
not applicable
on any
regardless
valid
of whether
o r e v e n i f i t was r e j e c t e d , b y t h e
t r i a l c o u r t . See G e n e r a l M o t o r s C o r p . v . S t o k e s C h e v r o l e t , 885
So.
2d 119, 124
(Ala.
2003).
15
Therefore,
we
will
consider
2110543
whether
the
summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r
b o a r d members i s due
presented
by
the
S e c t i o n 1983
of
the
board
and
t o be a f f i r m e d on any v a l i d l e g a l
the
ground
record.
provides:
" E v e r y p e r s o n who,
u n d e r c o l o r o f any s t a t u t e ,
ordinance,
r e g u l a t i o n , custom, or usage, of
any
S t a t e or T e r r i t o r y or the D i s t r i c t of Columbia,
s u b j e c t s , o r c a u s e s t o be s u b j e c t e d , any c i t i z e n o f
the
United
States
or
other
person w i t h i n
the
jurisdiction
thereof
to the d e p r i v a t i o n of
any
r i g h t s , p r i v i l e g e s , or immunities
s e c u r e d by
the
C o n s t i t u t i o n and l a w s , s h a l l be l i a b l e t o t h e p a r t y
i n j u r e d i n an a c t i o n a t l a w , s u i t i n e q u i t y , o r
other proper proceeding f o r redress
"
( E m p h a s i s added.)
I n G a r n e r v. M c C a l l , 235
(1938),
the
registrars
supreme
i s an
v. M i t c h e m , 50 So.
court
court
A l a . 187,
held
that
189,
a
independent agency of the
3d 485,
489-90
178
So.
county
210,
212
board
of
s t a t e . In Watkins
( A l a . C i v . App.
2010),
stated:
" I n W i l l v. M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t o f S t a t e P o l i c e , 491
U.S. 58, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed. 2d 45 ( 1 9 8 9 ) , t h e
U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t a s t a t e
was n o t a ' p e r s o n ' s u b j e c t t o s u i t u n d e r § 1983. I d .
a t 65-66. The C o u r t a l s o c o n c l u d e d
that actions
f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o § 1983 and a s s e r t i n g c l a i m s f o r
damages a g a i n s t g o v e r n m e n t o f f i c i a l s o r e m p l o y e e s i n
t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s were, i n e s s e n c e , c l a i m s
a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t t h e s t a t e i t s e l f . Thus, t h e C o u r t
c o n c l u d e d , s u c h c l a i m s were no d i f f e r e n t f r o m c l a i m s
a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t t h e s t a t e i t s e l f . I d . a t 71.
The
16
this
2110543
C o u r t r e c o g n i z e d , however, t h a t a s t a t e o f f i c i a l i n
his
or her o f f i c i a l
capacity,
when
sued f o r
i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f , w o u l d be a ' p e r s o n ' u n d e r § 1983
because ' " o f f i c i a l - c a p a c i t y a c t i o n s f o r p r o s p e c t i v e
relief
a r e n o t t r e a t e d as a c t i o n s
against the
State."'
I d . a t 71 n. 10 ( q u o t i n g K e n t u c k y v .
Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 n. 14, 105 S . C t . 3099, 87
L.Ed. 2d 114 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ) . See a l s o G r i s w o l d v . A l a b a m a
Dep't o f I n d u s . R e l a t i o n s , 903 F. Supp. 1492, 1500
n. 7 (M.D. A l a . 1995) ( a p p l y i n g t h e r a t i o n a l e o f
W i l l v. M i c h i g a n Dep't o f S t a t e P o l i c e , s u p r a , t o
c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e Alabama Department o f I n d u s t r i a l
R e l a t i o n s was immune f r o m s u i t i n f o r m e r e m p l o y e e ' s
§ 1983 a c t i o n ; a l s o r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t g o v e r n m e n t a l
o f f i c i a l s o r g o v e r n m e n t a l e m p l o y e e s may be s u e d i n
t h e i r o f f i c i a l capacities but only f o r prospective
injunctive relief)."
Accordingly,
because t h e b o a r d i s a s t a t e agency and t h e
b o a r d members a r e s t a t e
employees,
the board
and t h e b o a r d
members i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s a r e n o t " p e r s o n s "
t o a § 1983 c l a i m s e e k i n g
of State
supra.
and
be
t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r
t h e b o a r d members i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l
affirmed
§
against
be
damages. See W i l l v . M i c h i g a n Dep't
P o l i c e , 491 U.S. 58 ( 1 9 8 9 ) , a n d W a t k i n s v. M i t c h e m ,
Therefore,
A
of the board
c a p a c i t i e s i s due t o
i n s o f a r as B e a r d e n s o u g h t damages.
1983 c l a i m
seeking
prospective
t h e b o a r d members i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l
a cognizable
does
subject
not state
claim.
that
he
injunctive
c a p a c i t i e s would
I d . However, B e a r d e n ' s
i s seeking
17
relief
§ 1983
prospective
claim
injunctive
2110543
relief;
i t
states
that
compensatory
damages,
Moreover,
d i d not
seeking
prospective
should
be
consider
So.
he
2d
denied
"claims
attorney's
argue
to
on
that
1013
an
argument
against
and
Defendants
court
relief
ground.
( A l a . 2000)
the
trial
the
injunctive
of
fees
and
costs"
that
that
See
("[T]he
he
was
motion
we
cannot
Ex p a r t e R y a l s ,
appellate
court
j u d g m e n t o n l y t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l
contains
the t r i a l
motion
for
judgment
in
c o u r t r e c o r d p r e s e n t i n g t h a t argument
court before
summary
favor
c a p a c i t i e s i s due
the
t o be
been s e e k i n g p r o s p e c t i v e
p a r t y i n a § 1983
because
board
the
board
Therefore,
members
in
injunctive
1988") p r o v i d e s
a c t i o n may
recover
insofar
injunctive relief,
as
official
Bearden
the
the
summary
their
official
have
relief.
("§
their
in
of
a f f i r m e d i n s o f a r as B e a r d e n may
t h a t the
attorney
summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r
members
affirmed
or at the time of submission
judgment.").
of
42 U.S.C. § 1988
of
can
summary
to
validity
773
a
m a t e r i a l from the t r i a l
the
only.
the
Consequently,
s u c h an argument on a p p e a l .
1011,
consider
he
of
the
capacities
sought
damages
prevailing
f e e s . However,
board
is
or
due
and
to
be
prospective
B e a r d e n c a n n o t be a p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y as
18
the
to
2110543
his
c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e b o a r d and
official
capacities.
t h e b o a r d members i n t h e i r
Therefore,
Bearden
cannot
recover
a t t o r n e y f e e s f r o m t h e b o a r d and t h e b o a r d members i n t h e i r
official
(1985)
go
c a p a c i t i e s , see K e n t u c k y v. Graham, 473 U.S.
159,
165
( " [ L ] i a b i l i t y on t h e m e r i t s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r f e e s
hand
i n h a n d ; where
a defendant
has
not been
prevailed
a g a i n s t , e i t h e r b e c a u s e o f l e g a l i m m u n i t y o r on t h e m e r i t s , §
1988 does n o t a u t h o r i z e a f e e award a g a i n s t t h a t d e f e n d a n t . " ) ,
and t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e b o a r d and t h e b o a r d
members i n t h e i r
official
capacities
t o be
affirmed
board
members
c o u r t t h a t t h e y were j u d i c i a l
officers
i n s o f a r as he s o u g h t a t t o r n e y
In
their
individual
a s s e r t e d i n the t r i a l
on t h e g r o u n d ,
provides:
judicially
fees.
capacities,
among o t h e r s ,
"Registrars
i s due
are
the
t h a t § 17-3-6, A l a . Code
judicial
i n a l l matters p e r t a i n i n g
officers
and
1975,
shall
to the r e g i s t r a t i o n
act
of
a p p l i c a n t s . " F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e y a r g u e d t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e y were
judicial
Bearden's
officers,
§
1983
the d o c t r i n e
claim
against
of j u d i c i a l
them
in
immunity
their
barred
individual
c a p a c i t i e s . Bearden
a r g u e s t h a t § 17-3-6 does n o t c o n f e r t h e
s t a t u s of j u d i c i a l
o f f i c e r s on r e g i s t r a r s when t h e y change a
19
2110543
voter's
voting
domicile
b e c a u s e , he s a y s ,
§ 17-3-6
provides
t h a t r e g i s t r a r s a c t j u d i c i a l l y o n l y when t h e y a c t on a v o t e r ' s
initial
they
a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n a n d does n o t p r o v i d e
act judicially
when
concerning that voter's
they
take
as j u d i c i a l
initial
officers
only
to provide
when
they
action
that r e g i s t r a r s
a c t on a
voter's
a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n , i t w o u l d have e n a c t e d a
statute s t a t i n g : "Registrars are j u d i c i a l
they
subsequent
r e g i s t r a t i o n . However, i f , as B e a r d e n
contends, the l e g i s l a t u r e intended
act
any
that
a c t on an
initial
application
o f f i c e r s only
when
f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n as a
v o t e r . " The l e g i s l a t u r e d i d n o t e n a c t s u c h a s t a t u t e . R a t h e r ,
the
legislature
indicating
judicial
that
enacted
i t intended
officers
registrars.
a
when
statute
to provide
performing
Changing a v o t e r ' s
containing
that
language
r e g i s t r a r s are
any o f t h e f u n c t i o n s
voting domicile
o f r e g i s t r a r s . See 17-4-3. A c c o r d i n g l y ,
of
i s a function
we c o n c l u d e t h a t , b y
v i r t u e o f § 17-3-6, t h e b o a r d members were a c t i n g a s j u d i c i a l
o f f i c e r s when t h e y c h a n g e d B e a r d e n ' s v o t i n g
domicile.
B e a r d e n a l s o a r g u e s t h a t , e v e n i f t h e b o a r d members were
acting
as
judicial
officers
when
d o m i c i l e , t h e y do n o t have j u d i c i a l
20
they
changed
h i s voting
immunity u n l e s s
t h e y were
2110543
acting
i n good f a i t h
when t h e y c h a n g e d h i s v o t i n g
domicile.
B e a r d e n f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t he a l l e g e d i n h i s p l e a d i n g s
t h e b o a r d members were a c t i n g i n b a d f a i t h when t h e y
his
voting domicile
and, t h e r e f o r e ,
that the t r i a l
that
changed
c o u r t was
r e q u i r e d t o assume t h a t t h a t a l l e g a t i o n was t r u e f o r p u r p o s e s
o f r u l i n g on t h e b o a r d members' m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s . However, as
discussed
above, Bearden's f i l i n g h i s a f f i d a v i t
i n opposition
to the motion t o dismiss a u t o m a t i c a l l y converted the motion t o
dismiss
into
Ziter,
supra.
good f a i t h .
a motion
f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . See T r a v i s v .
A judicial officer
See B a h a k e l v . T a t e ,
1 9 8 7 ) . When a j u d i c i a l
based
on
i s p r e s u m e d t o have a c t e d i n
judicial
officer
immunity,
503 So. 2d 837, 839
moves f o r a summary j u d g m e n t
t h e nonmovant
must
rebut the
p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e j u d i c i a l o f f i c e r a c t e d i n good f a i t h
evidence
faith.
indicating
that
the j u d i c i a l
I d . Bearden d i d not t e s t i f y
b o a r d members h a d a c t e d
domicile.
(Ala.
officer
acted
i n his affidavit
i n bad f a i t h
with
i n bad
that the
i n changing h i s v o t i n g
R a t h e r , he t e s t i f i e d :
" I do n o t know who made t h e
c o m p l a i n t o r what was c o n s i d e r e d
by t h e b o a r d i n r e a c h i n g i t s
decision."
Consequently,
Bearden
failed
to
p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e b o a r d members h a d a c t e d
21
overcome
i n good
the
faith.
2110543
Judicial
as
the
547,
officers
claimants
553-55
are
immune f r o m § 1983
s e e k damages. See
(1967).
Therefore,
the
Ray
v.
claims
insofar
Pierson,
386
U.S.
summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r
o f t h e b o a r d members i n t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s i s due
be
a f f i r m e d i n s o f a r as B e a r d e n s o u g h t damages.
Judicial
officers
i n s o f a r as t h e
See
to
Pulliam
are
claimants
v.
injunctive
relief
immune
from
seek p r o s p e c t i v e
Allen,
conclude that j u d i c i a l
not
466
U.S.
522,
a
judicial
1983
claims
injunctive relief.
541-42
immunity i s not
against
§
a bar
officer
(1984)
to
prospective
acting in
judicial
c a p a c i t y . " ) . However, as d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , we
consider
the
argument t h a t Bearden
was
("We
seeking
her
cannot
prospective
i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f and t h a t t h e m o t i o n s h o u l d have be d e n i e d
t h a t g r o u n d . See Ex p a r t e R y a l s , s u p r a . T h e r e f o r e ,
judgment
i n favor
c a p a c i t i e s i s due
of
the
t o be
been s e e k i n g p r o s p e c t i v e
As
on
t h e summary
b o a r d members i n t h e i r
individual
a f f i r m e d i n s o f a r as B e a r d e n may
have
injunctive relief.
n o t e d a b o v e , § 1988
authorizes a prevailing party i n
a § 1983
a c t i o n t o r e c o v e r a t t o r n e y f e e s . However, b e c a u s e t h e
summary
judgment
individual
in
favor
of
the
c a p a c i t i e s must
be
affirmed
22
board
members
i n s o f a r as
in
their
Bearden
2110543
sought
damages
cannot
be
or
prospective
a prevailing
party
K e n t u c k y v. Graham, s u p r a .
the
injunctive
f o r purposes
relief,
of §
Bearden
1988. See
A c c o r d i n g l y , we must a l s o
summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e b o a r d members
affirm
i n their
i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s i n s o f a r as Bearden sought a t t o r n e y f e e s .
Conclusion
For
the reasons
discussed
above,
we a f f i r m
t h e summary
j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e b o a r d members a n d t h e b o a r d .
APPLICATION
FOR REHEARING
GRANTED; NO-OPINION
ORDER OF
AFFIRMANCE OF A P R I L 13, 2012, WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED;
AFFIRMED.
Thompson,
concur.
P . J . , and
Pittman,
23
Thomas,
a n d Moore, J J . ,
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.