Jason Ray Sweatman v. J.C. Giles and Daniel B. Rieben

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 4/19/2013 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, 2012-2013 2120203 Jason Ray Sweatman v. J.C. G i l e s and D a n i e l B. Rieben Appeal from Barbour C i r c u i t (CV-12-47) Court PER CURIAM. J a s o n Ray Sweatman, Facility an i n m a t e a t V e n t r e s s ("the p r i s o n " ) , a p p e a l s Correctional from a judgment d i s m i s s i n g h i s c i v i l a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e w a r d e n o f t h e p r i s o n , J.C. G i l e s , and t h e c h a p l a i n o f t h e p r i s o n , D a n i e l B. R i e b e n . 2120203 Sweatman f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t G i l e s and R i e b e n , b o t h i n d i v i d u a l l y and 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 , p u r s u a n t t o 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the complaint, Sweatman a l l e g e d t h a t G i l e s had v i o l a t e d h i s E i g h t h Amendment r i g h t s b y f a i l i n g t o e n f o r c e the prison's asserted failing that no-smoking G i l e s "acted to enforce prison f a c i l i t y . in policy. with Specifically, Sweatman d e l i b e r a t e i n d i f f e r e n c e " by t h e p r i s o n ' s no-smoking p o l i c y i n s i d e t h e G i l e s ' s c o n d u c t , Sweatman a l l e g e d , r e s u l t e d h i s near-constant exposure t o secondhand a l s o known as e n v i r o n m e n t a l t o b a c c o smoke tobacco ("ETS"), smoke, "causing him n a u s e a and h i s e y e s t o b u r n and a l s o c a u s i n g [ h i m ] t o h a v e difficulty breathing." In the complaint, Sweatman also a l l e g e d t h a t e x p o s u r e t o s e c o n d h a n d smoke "has b e e n p r o v e n b y medical not s c i e n c e t o cause adverse h e a l t h e f f e c t s i n c l u d i n g b u t l i m i t e d t o cancer, Sweatman asserted Amendment r i g h t s . heart that disease, Rieben and e t c . " had v i o l a t e d h i s F i r s t Sweatman a l l e g e d t h a t R i e b e n " g o v e r n e d " t h e p r i s o n ' s " h o n o r dorm," w h e r e , he s a i d , t h e p r i s o n ' s n o - s m o k i n g p o l i c y was " h a l f w a y " e n f o r c e d . Sweatman f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t 1 I n Sweatman's c o m p l a i n t , he d i d n o t c l a r i f y what he meant by s a y i n g t h a t t h e p r i s o n ' s n o - s m o k i n g p o l i c y was " h a l f w a y " enforced i n t h e h o n o r dorm. I n f a c t , he p u t t h e w o r d 1 2 2120203 any i n m a t e r e s i d i n g i n t h e honor a t l e a s t one r e l i g i o u s dorm was r e q u i r e d t o a t t e n d s e r v i c e a month. Such a r e q u i r e m e n t , Sweatman a l l e g e d , v i o l a t e d h i s r i g h t s u n d e r t h e F r e e E x e r c i s e Clause of the F i r s t As relief, Amendment. Sweatman s o u g h t an i n j u n c t i o n ordering Giles and R i e b e n , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t o p r o v i d e a n o n s m o k i n g dorm without imposing designated "religious smoking areas f o r both o f f i c e r s ; t o p r o h i b i t smoking "chow l i n e , " and t h e " p i l l and R i e b e n inmates and to correctional near the h e a l t h - c a r e u n i t , the He a l s o s o u g h t m o n e t a r y damages. filed a motion t o d i s m i s s Sweatman's c o m p l a i n t o r , a l t e r n a t i v e l y , f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . motion, claim that they asserted upon w h i c h that relief t h e y were e n t i t l e d Sweatman trial Ala. t o v a r i o u s forms 25, 2012, t h e B a r b o u r Civ. P.]." to state Sweatman 3 Circuit a t h e judgment No motion. Court "pursuant t o Rule appealed " h a l f w a y " i n q u o t a t i o n marks. o f immunity. i n support of t h e i r court") dismissed the action R. had f a i l e d In t h e i r c o u l d be g r a n t e d , a n d t h e y c l a i m e d e v i d e n t i a r y s u b m i s s i o n was f i l e d On November provide l i n e " ; and t o s t r i c t l y e n f o r c e t h e p r i s o n ' s no-smoking p o l i c y . Giles requirements"; ("the 12(b)[, t o the 2120203 A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t , w h i c h t r a n s f e r r e d t h e a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t , p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1976. In h i s b r i e f t o t h i s trial court immunity. claims their improperly dismissed As m e n t i o n e d , against Giles court, Sweatman c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t h e a c t i o n on t h e g r o u n d o f i n h i s c o m p l a i n t Sweatman and R i e b e n i n both i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s , pursuant That s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s , i n pertinent their asserted official and t o 42 U.S.C. § 1983. part: " 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 , c u s t o m , o r u s a g e , o f any State 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 t o t h e d e p r i v a t i o n o f any r i g h t s , p r i v i l e g e s , o r i m m u n i t i e s s e c u r e d by t h e 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 any 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 " G i l e s and R i e b e n a s s e r t e d i n t h e i r m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , and assert i n their b r i e f on a p p e a l , they are e n t i t l e d not explicitly to sovereign assert application i n this that, immunity. qualified as s t a t e employees, Although they d i d immunity, we discuss i t s c a s e o u t o f an abundance o f c a u t i o n . W a t k i n s v. M i t c h e m , 50 So. 3d 485 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) , court addressed the a p p l i c a t i o n 4 of sovereign immunity In this and 2120203 q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y t o s t a t e e m p l o y e e s i n t h e c o n t e x t o f § 1983 actions, stating: " I n t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' a n s w e r , t h e y s t a t e d : 'The d e f e n d a n t s named i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y p l e a d the a f f i r m a t i v e defense o f sovereign immunity.' S o v e r e i g n immunity, a r i s i n g 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 o f 1901, § 14, p r o v i d e s no p r o t e c t i o n t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s b e c a u s e ' [ s ] e c t i o n 14 i m m u n i t y has no a p p l i c a b i l i t y t o f e d e r a l - l a w c l a i m s . ' B e d s o l e v. C l a r k , 33 So. 3d 9, 13 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) (rejecting defendants' argument t h a t they were e n t i t l e d t o a summary j u d g m e n t on p l a i n t i f f ' s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 c l a i m on t h e b a s i s o f s o v e r e i g n immunity). See a l s o Ex p a r t e R u s s e l l , 31 So. 3d 694, 696 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ( a c t i o n s s e e k i n g a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment o r a c t i o n s s e e k i n g t o e n j o i n s t a t e o f f i c i a l s f r o m e n f o r c i n g an u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law a r e n o t s u b j e c t t o s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i t y ) . But see 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 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ] , (recognizing that governmental o f f i c i a l s and governmental employees a r e s u b j e c t t o s u i t i n § 1983 a c t i o n s f o r p r o s p e c t i v e i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f ) ; a n d 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 . 1 9 9 5 ) ] (same). B e c a u s e W a t k i n s ' s c o m p l a i n t a s s e r t e d only federal-law claims, the t r i a l court could not have p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d the i n d i v i d u a l defendants, named 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 j u d g m e n t on t h e p l e a d i n g s on t h e b a s i s o f s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i t y . To t h e e x t e n t Watkins s o u g h t m o n e t a r y damages against the i n d i v i d u a l defendants 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 , however, t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment i n favor of the i n d i v i d u a l defendants i s affirmed because c l a i m s f o r such r e l i e f a r e b a r r e d under § 1983. See W i l l , s u p r a ; a n d G r i s w o l d , s u p r a . "The i n d i v i d u a l defendants also asserted i n their answer: 'The d e f e n d a n t s named i n their i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y plead the a f f i r m a t i v e defense of q u a l i f i e d immunity.' Q u a l i f i e d immunity a p p l i e s 5 2120203 only t o governmental o f f i c i a l s and governmental e m p l o y e e s s u e d 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 . See F l o o d v. S t a t e o f 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 , 948 F. Supp. 1535, 1547 (M.D. A l a . 1996) ( d i s c u s s i n g a p p l i c a t i o n of q u a l i f i e d immunity). I n Ex p a r t e M a d i s o n C o u n t y B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n , 1 So. 3d 980 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) , o u r supreme c o u r t s t a t e d : " ' " ' 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 expense 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 , a n d i s not 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 . ' Hardy v. Town o f H a y n e v i l l e , 50 F. Supp. 2d 1176, 1189 (M.D. A l a . 1999) . 'An o f f i c i a l i s 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 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 actions do "'not violate 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 reasonable person would have known.'"' H a r d y , 5 0 F. Supp. 2d a t 1189 ( q u o t i n g L a n c a s t e r v . Monroe C o u n t y , 116 F.3d 1419, 1424 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) ) . " ' "Ex p a r t e M a d i s o n C o u n t y Bd. o f Educ., 1 So. 3d a t 990 ( q u o t i n g 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 3 9 3 , 402 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ) . " I n H a r d y v. Town o f H a y n e v i l l e , 50 F. Supp. 2d 1176 (M.D. A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) , an i n m a t e b r o u g h t c l a i m s , p u r s u a n t t o 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a g a i n s t an a r r e s t i n g p o l i c e o f f i c e r , t h e c h i e f o f p o l i c e , t h e mayor, a n d the Town o f H a y n e v i l l e . Upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e defendants' motion t o d i s m i s s the inmate's c l a i m s , the United States D i s t r i c t Court f o r the Middle D i s t r i c t o f Alabama d i s c u s s e d a t l e n g t h t h e law a p p l i c a b l e t o the a f f i r m a t i v e defense of q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y . The c o u r t s t a t e d : "'[The] D e f e n d a n t s ... have a s s e r t e d the d e f e n s e o f q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y i n a R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , and t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d t o q u a l i f i e d immunity a t t h i s 6 2120203 stage in the proceedings i f the P l a i n t i f f s [ ' ] complaint f a i l s to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Santamorena v. G e o r g i a M i l i t a r y C o l l e g e , 147 F.3d 1337, 1340 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1998) . To overcome t h i s i m m u n i t y , a p l a i n t i f f has t h e b u r d e n o f " p o i n t i n g t o case law which p r e d a t e s the official's alleged improper conduct, involves materially similar facts, and truly compels the c o n c l u s i o n that the p l a i n t i f f had a r i g h t u n d e r f e d e r a l l a w . " Id. When c o n s i d e r i n g w h e t h e r the law applicable to c e r t a i n facts i s c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d , the f a c t s o f the case need not be the same, b u t must be materially similar. I d . a t 1339. O n l y i n e x c e p t i o n a l c a s e s a r e t h e words o f a f e d e r a l s t a t u t e o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s p e c i f i c enough, or the g e n e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r u l e a l r e a d y i d e n t i f i e d i n d e c i s i o n a l l a w so c l e a r l y a p p l i c a b l e , so t h a t s p e c i f i c c a s e l a w i s n o t r e q u i r e d . See i d . a t 1339 n. 6. "If c a s e l a w , i n f a c t u a l t e r m s , has n o t s t a k e d out a b r i g h t line, qualified immunity almost always p r o t e c t s the defendant." L a s s i t e r v. A l a b a m a A & M U n i v . , Bd. o f T r u s t e e s , 28 F.3d 1146, 1150 (11th C i r . 1994) ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n s and c i t a t i o n s omitted).' "50 F. Supp. 2d a t 1189-90. B e c a u s e i n r e s p o n s e t o the i n d i v i d u a l defendants' motions to d i s m i s s the inmate i n Hardy f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e the n e c e s s a r y caselaw, the d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d the motions to dismiss as to the defendants sued in their individual capacities. I d . a t 1190. "Upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e c l a i m s a s s e r t e d i n W a t k i n s ' s c o m p l a i n t and t h e d e f e n s e s a s s e r t e d i n t h e defendants' answer, the t r i a l court entered a judgment i n f a v o r o f the d e f e n d a n t s . Because the 7 2120203 t r i a l c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d o n l y t h o s e two p l e a d i n g s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d n o t have p o s s i b l y c o n s i d e r e d any r e s p o n s e f i l e d by W a t k i n s t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' claim of q u a l i f i e d immunity. Thus, t h e t r i a l c o u r t has not a f f o r d e d Watkins the o p p o r t u n i t y to rebut the defendants' claim that they were entitled to q u a l i f i e d immunity. To t h e e x t e n t t h e t r i a l c o u r t entered a judgment i n f a v o r of the individual d e f e n d a n t s on t h e b a s i s o f t h a t a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e , t h a t j u d g m e n t was p r e m a t u r e l y entered." W a t k i n s , 50 As was So. 3d a t 490-91. t h e c a s e i n W a t k i n s , Sweatman's c o m p l a i n t o n l y f e d e r a l - l a w c l a i m s ; t h e r e f o r e , the t r i a l court could have p r o p e r l y d i s m i s s e d the named 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 , on t h e b a s i s o f immunity. the However, to claims asserted a g a i n s t G i l e s and extent the trial affirmed 1983. court's because Watkins, granting the of d i s m i s s a l , motion Sweatman's c o m p l a i n t Again, to as was consider the the f o r such sovereign of relief monetary capacities, Giles and Rieben are barred under is § supra. In i t s order in judgment i n f a v o r claims Rieben, Sweatman s o u g h t damages a g a i n s t G i l e s and R i e b e n i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l not to the trial dismiss, court i t stated that, had considered and G i l e s and R i e b e n ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s . case i n Watkins, the t r i a l other pleadings or f i l e d a f t e r t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s was 8 court's documents failure that Sweatman f i l e d deprived Sweatman 2120203 o f an o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e b u t a c l a i m o f q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y . note that "a motion to dismiss is typically appropriate v e h i c l e by w h i c h t o a s s e r t q u a l i f i e d State-agent i m m u n i t y and ... normally not the immunity or the d e t e r m i n a t i o n 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 We as to reserved u n t i l the summary-judgment 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 Dep'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 , 8 37 So. 2d 808, the trial ground 813-14 court that ( A l a . 2002). dismissed Giles and Accordingly, Sweatman's Rieben were i m m u n i t y , s u c h a d e t e r m i n a t i o n was 3d a t § 1983 t o the action entitled premature. to extent on the qualified W a t k i n s , 50 So. 491. F u r t h e r m o r e , we n o t e t h a t on November 20, 2012, before the trial court entered f i v e days i t s judgment d i s m i s s i n g the a c t i o n , Sweatman f i l e d an o b j e c t i o n t o t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , although the objection. trial court apparently did not consider I n t h a t o b j e c t i o n , Sweatman s t a t e d : " I n t h e most r e c e n t y e a r s s o c i e t y ' s a d d i t u d e [sic] ha[s] evolved t o the p o i n t t h a t unwanted e x p o s u r e t o ETS may amount t o a v i o l a t i o n of ' s o c i e t y ' s e v o l v i n g standards of decency' because t h e h e a l t h c o n s e q u e n c e s f r o m ETS a r e m a g n i f i e d i n p r i s o n s e t t i n g s because of the n e a r l y constant e x p o s u r e o f ETS. A v e r y v. P o w e l l , 695 F. Supp. 632 (D.N.H. 1 9 8 8 ) . " 9 that 2120203 I n A v e r y v. P o w e l l , action brought 695 F. Supp. by a p r i s o n inmate 632 (D.N.H. 1 9 8 8 ) , an pursuant t o § 1983, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e D i s t r i c t o f New H a m p s h i r e d e n i e d a p r i s o n warden's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s an i n m a t e ' s t h a t h i s E i g h t h Amendment r i g h t s were b e i n g of claim v i o l a t e d because c o n t i n u o u s e x p o s u r e t o s e c o n d h a n d t o b a c c o smoke, o r ETS. In r e a c h i n g i t s decision, the d i s t r i c t court stated: " [ B ] e c a u s e 'the t o u c h s t o n e [of c r u e l and u n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t ] i s t h e e f f e c t upon t h e i m p r i s o n e d , ' Rhodes [ v . Chapman,] 452 U.S. [337] a t 367 [ ( 1 9 8 1 ) ] (Brennan, J . , c o n c u r r i n g ) , and because s o c i e t y has r e c o g n i z e d t h a t e x p o s u r e t o ETS may be a p o t e n t i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t danger t o h e a l t h , t h i s Court f i n d s f o r the purposes o f t h i s motion t h a t , because p l a i n t i f f might establish that h i s constant involuntary e x p o s u r e t o ETS i s h a r m f u l t o h i s h e a l t h , he h a s s t a t e d a c l a i m f o r c r u e l and u n u s u a l punishment u n d e r t h e E i g h t h Amendment." A v e r y , 695 F. Supp. a t 640. By the citing wrongful constant an o p i n i o n - - w r i t t e n conduct involuntary violation alleged Sweatman met predates the o f f i c i a l ' s materially i n this exposure of h i s Eighth h i s burden more t h a n 20 y e a r s to Amendment case--that ETS could rights, of "'"pointing alleged improper s i m i l a r f a c t s , and t r u l y 10 held that constitute i t appears t o case conduct, compels before the a that law which involves conclusion 2120203 t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f had a r i g h t u n d e r f e d e r a l l a w . " ' " 50 So. 3d a t 491 Supp. 2d 1176, 1189-90 S a n t a m o r e n a v. (11th (quoting Georgia (M.D. and Rieben Ala. Military have e n t i t l e d to state-agent previously noted, claims. Civ. 1999), Coll., App. state Felder 2002). agent v. quoting 147 F.3d 50 in F. turn 1337, 1340 or declaratory 2 0 1 1 ) ; see 2d So. i t 3d is 897, they relief n.2 are has to § (Ala. settled that actions seeking state agents. against o f E d u c . v. James, 83 So. apply 901 well operate to bar 3d 473, 481 (Ala. a l s o M a t t h e w s v. A l a b a m a A g r i c . & Mech. U n i v . , 78 7 691, 698 ( A l a . 2000) (noting that i n j u n c t i v e or d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f a g a i n s t b a r r e d by t h e d o c t r i n e o f s t a t e - a g e n t to the extent dismiss that However, as t h i s c o u r t 29 Moreover, injunctive asserted i m m u n i t y does n o t Allen, i m m u n i t y does n o t C o l b e r t C n t y . Bd. also immunity. state-agent So. Town o f H a y n e v i l l e , C i r . 1998)). Giles 1983 H a r d y v. Watkins, the trial c o u r t may Sweatman's c l a i m s of s t a t e - a g e n t an action a s t a t e agent i s not immunity). Accordingly, have g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n for injunctive relief immunity, i t e r r e d i n doing 11 seeking so. on the to basis 2120203 Sweatman a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a t the d i s m i s s a l of h i s § 1983 a c t i o n b a s e d on h i s a l l e g e d f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m f o r w h i c h relief c o u l d be g r a n t e d was improper. " ' I n Nance v. M a t t h e w s , 622 So. 2d 297 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , [ t h e supreme c o u r t ] s t a t e d t h e s t a n d a r d o f review applicable to a r u l i n g on a m o t i o n t o dismiss: "'On appeal, a dismissal i s not e n t i t l e d to a presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s . The a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d of r e v i e w under Rule 12(b)(6)[, A l a . R. C i v . P.,] is whether, when the allegations of the c o m p l a i n t a r e v i e w e d most s t r o n g l y i n t h e pleader's favor, i t appears that the pleader could prove any set of circumstances t h a t would e n t i t l e [ i t ] to relief. In making t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n , this Court does not consider whether the p l a i n t i f f w i l l u l t i m a t e l y p r e v a i l , but only w h e t h e r [ i t ] may p o s s i b l y p r e v a i l . We n o t e that a Rule 12(b)(6) d i s m i s s a l i s proper 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 . ' "622 Knox v. So. 2d a t 299 Western World (citations I n s . Co., omitted)." 893 So. be held 2d 321, 322 (Ala. 2004). A United correctional States indifference" official may Constitution to an for inmate's 12 acting health or liable with safety under the "deliberate when the 2120203 official knows t h a t the inmate faces "a substantial risk s e r i o u s harm" and w i t h s u c h k n o w l e d g e d i s r e g a r d s failing to take r e a s o n a b l e measures to abate i t . B r e n n a n , 511 his that r i s k brief stated U.S. that Sweatman p o i n t s o u t in 828 (1994). the United States Supreme of action exists under cause As v. 825, a Court the w i t h d e l i b e r a t e i n d i f f e r e n c e , e x p o s e d him that pose an future health. unreasonable Helling v. risk of M c K i n n e y , 509 or her harm have, to l e v e l s to U.S. has Eighth Amendment when a p r i s o n e r a l l e g e s t h a t p r i s o n o f f i c i a l s ETS his 25, or 35 (1993) forced share see Atkinson that cell with v. T a y l o r , a prisoner constant violation Powell, who smokers of a supra a five-pack-per-day 316 F.3d claimed for many clearly that 262 he months (3d C i r . 2003) had i n v o l u n t a r y e x p o s u r e t o ETS a and that his assertion (holding claim right); to also shared a c e l l stated established (prisoner's c l a i m o f c r u e l and 257, smoker); of her ( c o n c l u d i n g t h a t p r i s o n e r s t a t e d a c l a i m when he was a by Farmer appeal, on of with for Avery a v. constant i s harmful to h i s health stated a unusual punishment). I n t h i s c a s e Sweatman a l l e g e d i n h i s c o m p l a i n t t h a t G i l e s had acted with deliberate indifference 13 to his health by 2120203 failing to enforce f a i l i n g to designate the prison's no-smoking policy smoking areas w i t h i n the p r i s o n and by facility. He does n o t i n c l u d e R i e b e n i n t h i s a l l e g a t i o n . As a r e s u l t o f Giles's conduct, constant e x p o s u r e " t o ETS, nausea, burning eyes, asserted that exposure affects on Sweatman a s s e r t e d , w h i c h has and ETS can suffered have He long-term the "near- to experience breathing. I t appears t h a t Sweatman made as t o R i e b e n r e g a r d i n g his has c a u s e d him difficulty to his health. he also adverse only a l l e g a t i o n the a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n of E i g h t h Amendment r i g h t s , as o p p o s e d t o h i s F i r s t Amendment rights, was that Rieben allowed h o n o r dorm t o p u r c h a s e t o b a c c o In their appellate t h e j u d g m e n t i s due brief, t o be smokers who reside in the products. G i l e s and Rieben assert that a f f i r m e d b e c a u s e Sweatman f a i l e d e s t a b l i s h c e r t a i n e l e m e n t s r e q u i r e d t o s u s t a i n a § 1983 They s t a t e t h a t , " t o s u r v i v e to claim. summary j u d g m e n t , " Sweatman was r e q u i r e d to produce s u f f i c i e n t evidence of a s u b s t a n t i a l r i s k o f s e r i o u s harm, t h e i r d e l i b e r a t e i n d i f f e r e n c e t o t h a t and causation. they r e l y not on However, t h e i r deal with the argument and the risk, authorities p r o p r i e t y o f a summary j u d g m e n t , t h e p r o p r i e t y o f a d i s m i s s a l o f an a c t i o n . 14 In t h i s case, 2120203 the t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d i n i t s j u d g m e n t t h a t i s was d i s m i s s i n g Sweatman's a c t i o n . reached the The l i t i g a t i o n i n t h i s a c t i o n h a s n o t y e t summary-judgment stage; R i e b e n ' s argument and s u p p o r t i n g are therefore, Giles a u t h o r i t y as t o t h i s i n a p p l i c a b l e at t h i s point i n the we 2 Giles--that constant his that Sweatman's holding i n allegation against i s , t h a t G i l e s ' s conduct r e s u l t e d i n h i s "near- e x p o s u r e " t o ETS a n d t h a t t h a t e x p o s u r e was health and sufficient granted. conclude issue proceedings. I n l i g h t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t ' s Helling, and to posing state a a risk claim to upon h i s future which health--was relief A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l harming could court be erred i n d i s m i s s i n g Sweatman's c l a i m t h a t G i l e s v i o l a t e d h i s E i g h t h Amendment rights. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t Sweatman's c o m p l a i n t may have a s s e r t e d an E i g h t h Amendment c l a i m a g a i n s t R i e b e n , we r e a c h a d i f f e r e n t conclusion. According to the complaint, R i e b e n , whom Sweatman a l l e g e s " g o v e r n [ s ] " t h e h o n o r dorm, a l l o w s i n m a t e s r e s i d i n g i n T h i s c o u r 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 . See Ex p a r t e H a l e , 6 So. 3d 452, 458 n. 5 (Ala. 2 0 0 8 ) ; and L i t t l e v. C o n s o l i d a t e d P u b l ' g Co., 83 So. 3d 517, 525 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) . 2 15 2120203 t h e h o n o r dorm t o p u r c h a s e t o b a c c o p r o d u c t s and o n l y " h a l f w a y " enforces the no-smoking c o m p l a i n t i n d i c a t e s how practice policy. he Nothing i s i n any way Even Sweatman's harmed by Rieben's to purchase tobacco i f Sweatman p r o v e d h i s a l l e g a t i o n s against of a l l o w i n g honor-dorm inmates products. in R i e b e n as t o t h i s a p p a r e n t c l a i m , he w o u l d n o t be e n t i t l e d t o any relief. Accordingly, we conclude that the t r i a l court p r o p e r l y d i s m i s s e d Sweatman's c l a i m t h a t R i e b e n v i o l a t e d h i s E i g h t h Amendment r i g h t s . R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , A l a . R. Sweatman Exercise who also See Knox, 893 So. 2d a t 322; C i v . P. alleged that Rieben C l a u s e o f t h e F i r s t Amendment by violated living was, at least p a r t i a l l y , religious area at the p r i s o n inmates service where t h e n o - s m o k i n g enforced. i n a smoke-free service Free at The h o n o r dorm, Sweatman a s s e r t e d , i s t h e only wishes to l i v e the requiring l i v e d i n t h e h o n o r dorm t o a t t e n d a r e l i g i o u s l e a s t once a month. and at l e a s t T h e r e f o r e , i f an policy inmate e n v i r o n m e n t , he must a t t e n d a once a month. Sweatman c l a i m e d t h a t he i s an a g n o s t i c and t h a t R i e b e n ' s r e q u i r e m e n t v i o l a t e d his First Amendment right not activities. 16 to participate in religious 2120203 On a p p e a l , Sweatman makes o n l y a p a s s i n g r e f e r e n c e F i r s t Amendment c l a i m . In h i s b r i e f , he sets forth to h i s language f r o m t h e F i r s t Amendment s t a t i n g t h a t " C o n g r e s s s h a l l make no law respecting an establishment the f r e e e x e r c i s e t h e r e o f . " a prisoner's issue in right this Sweatman has pro the he does n o t any of a pro the to counsel." L o c k e t t v. A.L. ( A l a . C i v . App. se courts litigant of other attempt this than to state one S a n d l i n Lumber Co., a are court governing no represented 588 So. 2d 1991). " R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) [ , A l a . R. App. P.,] requires t h a t arguments i n b r i e f s c o n t a i n d i s c u s s i o n s of f a c t s and r e l e v a n t l e g a l a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t s u p p o r t t h e p a r t y ' s p o s i t i o n . I f t h e y do n o t , t h e a r g u m e n t s a r e w a i v e d . Moore v. P r u d e n t i a l R e s i d e n t i a l S e r v s . Ltd. P'ship, 849 So. 2d 914, 923 ( A l a . 2002); A r r i n g t o n v. M a t h i s , 929 So. 2d 468, 470 n. 2 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ; Hamm v. S t a t e , 913 So. 2d 460, 486 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . 'This i s so, because " ' i t i s n o t t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h i s C o u r t t o do a p a r t y ' s 17 to stated before t h i s However, i t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t " [ r ] u l e s operation at Rieben. t h a t Sweatman i s a p p e a r i n g forgiving 890 included argument a s s e r t i n g t h a t h i s c o m p l a i n t recognize se. not and v a l i d F i r s t Amendment c l a i m a g a i n s t We or p r o h i b i t i n g f r e e speech, which i s not authority in his appellate brief, make a l e g a l religion, He t h e n c i t e s a c a s e d e a l i n g w i t h to exercise case. of more by 889, 2120203 legal research o r t o make and address legal a r g u m e n t s f o r a p a r t y b a s e d on u n d e l i n e a t e d g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n s n o t s u p p o r t e d by s u f f i c i e n t a u t h o r i t y o r a r g u m e n t . ' " ' Jimmy Day P l u m b i n g & H e a t i n g , I n c . v. S m i t h , 964 So. 2d 1, 9 ( A l a . 2007) (quoting B u t l e r v. Town o f A r g o , 871 So. 2d 1, 20 ( A l a . 2003) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Dykes v . Lane T r u c k i n g , I n c . , 652 So. 2d 248, 251 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ) . " White 1058 Sands G r o u p , L.L.C. v. PRS I I , L L C , 998 So. 2d 1 0 4 2 , ( A l a . 2008). Because complies Sweatman failed to make an argument that w i t h R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. App. P., r e g a r d i n g t h e d i s m i s s a l o f h i s F i r s t Amendment c l a i m , we a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t of t h e t r i a l c o u r t as t o t h a t c l a i m . 3 For t h e r e a s o n s s e t f o r t h above, t o t h e e x t e n t t h e t r i a l court's relief judgment d i s m i s s e d and h i s E i g h t h judgment i s r e v e r s e d , Sweatman's c l a i m s Amendment claim for injunctive against a n d t h e c a u s e i s remanded Giles, the for further Sweatman d i d make an argument r e g a r d i n g h i s F i r s t Amendment c l a i m i n h i s r e p l y b r i e f . B e c a u s e he d i d n o t make t h a t argument i n h i s i n i t i a l b r i e f , h o w e v e r , we do n o t c o n s i d e r i t . Dunn v. D a v e n p o r t , 958 So. 2d 873, 876 n. 2 (Ala. C i v . App. 2006) (declining to consider additional a r g u m e n t s made f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e i n a p p e l l a n t ' s r e p l y b r i e f ) ; H u n t l e y v. R e g i o n s Bank, 807 So. 2d 512, 515 n. 2 ( A l a . 2001) ( a p p e l l a n t ' s a d d i t i o n a l arguments r e g a r d i n g d e n i a l o f m o t i o n t o c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n were n o t c o n s i d e r e d b e c a u s e t h e y were not r a i s e d i n t h e i n i t i a l b r i e f ) . 3 18 2120203 proceedings. To the extent that t h e judgment dismissed Sweatman's F i r s t a n d E i g h t h Amendment c l a i m s a g a i n s t the judgment i s a f f i r m e d . AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED I N PART; AND REMANDED. All the judges concur. 19 Rieben,

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.