Ex parte Alabama Peace Officers' Standards and Training Commission and R. Alan Benefield, individually and in his capacity as executive secretary of the Alabama Peace Officers' Standards and Training Commission. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Doby Vines and Joey Vines v. R. Alan Benefield et al.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 09/30/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2009 1051667 Ex p a r t e Alabama Peace O f f i c e r s ' S t a n d a r d s and T r a i n i n g Commission and R. A l a n B e n e f i e l d , i n d i v i d u a l l y and i n h i s c a p a c i t y as e x e c u t i v e s e c r e t a r y o f t h e Alabama Peace O f f i c e r s ' S t a n d a r d s and T r a i n i n g Commission PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Doby V i n e s and J o e y Vines v. R. A l a n B e n e f i e l d e t a l . ) (Montgomery C i r c u i t PARKER, The CV-05-23) Justice. Alabama Commission Alan Court, Peace ("APOSTC") Benefield, Officers' Standards and i t s e x e c u t i v e are defendants i n an and secretary, action Training Chief brought R. by 1051667 b r o t h e r s Doby V i n e s and J o e y V i n e s , f o r m e r p a r t - t i m e e m p l o y e e s at Southwest court, Alabama APOSTC court petition claims motion for a trial summary t h e y w e r e immune f r o m l i a b i l i t y . The and Benefield now for a o f mandamus directing the Court arises writ to dismiss with prejudice a l l the grant the p e t i t i o n . Background case a In the APOSTC a g a i n s t t h e m . We This filed ("SWAPA"). the motion. Court Circuit I. 2003, that denied this Montgomery Academy and B e n e f i e l d judgment, a s s e r t i n g trial Police and P r o c e d u r a l P o s t u r e from the termination on o f t h e V i n e s e s ' p a r t - t i m e employment w i t h January SWAPA, 24, which r e s u l t e d f r o m a n APOSTC d i r e c t i v e a u t h o r i z i n g t h e d i s m i s s a l o f all in SWAPA p a r t - t i m e e m p l o y e e s . t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t defendants State Benefield Community capacities, their The V i n e s e s C o u r t on J a n u a r y and Gary College, a n d APOSTC. employment, wages, 1 Branch, i n their The filed 5, 2 0 0 5 , n a m i n g a s president of Faulkner individual Vineses and b e n e f i t s , a complaint sought and official restoration and b o t h of compensatory B r a n c h was s u e d i n h i s c a p a c i t y a s p r e s i d e n t o f F a u l k n e r State Community C o l l e g e , which provided classroom space, f a c i l i t i e s - r e l a t e d s e r v i c e s , a n d p a y r o l l s e r v i c e s t o SWAPA. I n response to Branch's p e t i t i o n , t h i s Court issued a w r i t of mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e d i s m i s s a l o f a l l c l a i m s a g a i n s t B r a n c h . See E x p a r t e B r a n c h , 980 S o . 2 d 981 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) . 1 2 1051667 and punitive capacity, damages alleging themselves t o deny benefits. They authority were that he Benefield and the Vineses also claim to order their Branch their that dismissal. in his had employment, APOSTC summary trial judgment, court entered 9, 2 0 0 6 , APOSTC d i d not address i t s August judgment motion. denial 8, APOSTC of the motion 2006, the issue judgment and B e n e f i e l d f o r a summary II. Standard of and have the The c l a i m s a g a i n s t the defense of Branch 1. filed a motion f o r of immunity. immunity denying now among wages, d i d not and B e n e f i e l d asserting individual conspired s u b s e q u e n t l y d i s m i s s e d . See s u p r a n o t e On J u n e a from their seek when i t summary- review of the judgment. Review "'While the g e n e r a l r u l e i s that the d e n i a l of a m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t i s n o t r e v i e w a b l e , t h e e x c e p t i o n i s t h a t t h e d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n f o r summary judgment grounded on a claim of immunity i s r e v i e w a b l e b y p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t o f mandamus.' Ex p a r t e R i z k , 791 S o . 2 d 9 1 1 , 912 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . A w r i t o f mandamus i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e m e d y available o n l y when t h e r e i s : ' ( 1 ) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o t h e order sought; (2) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e respondent t o p e r f o r m , accompanied by a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d (4) t h e p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t . ' E x p a r t e BOC G r o u p , I n c . , 823 S o . 2 d 1270 , 1 2 7 2 (Ala. 2001)." Ex parte Nall, 879 S o . 2 d 5 4 1 , 543 3 ( A l a . 2003). The 1051667 " T h i s c a s e i s b e f o r e us on a p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus. The p e t i t i o n c i t e s Ex p a r t e R i z k , 791 So. 2d 9 1 1 , 912 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t ' [ w ] h i l e the g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t the d e n i a l of a m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t i s n o t r e v i e w a b l e , the e x c e p t i o n i s t h a t t h e d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n f o r summary judgment grounded on a claim of immunity is reviewable b y p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t o f mandamus.' We c o n f i n e our i n t e r l o c u t o r y r e v i e w t o m a t t e r s germane to the i s s u e of immunity. M a t t e r s r e l e v a n t to the m e r i t s o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g t o r t c l a i m , s u c h as i s s u e s of duty or c a u s a t i o n , are best l e f t to the trial court .... See R y a n v . H a y e s , 831 So. 2d 2 1 , 32 (Ala. 2002) (recognizing that the defense of i m m u n i t y s h o u l d , as a g e n e r a l r u l e , be d e t e r m i n e d as a t h r e s h o l d i s s u e , thereby a v o i d i n g 'development of unnecessarily restricted p r i n c i p l e s of tort law d r i v e n by the need to accommodate p r i n c i p l e s of State-agent immunity')." Ex parte Hudson, 866 So. 2d 1115, III. APOSTC a n d the brief The order to address mandamus erred in Benefield's support entered by the asks of the motion trial court issue. to i n d e n y i n g APOSTC a n d judgment i n which they A. Section 14, 2003). Analysis the Court (Ala. i m m u n i t y d e f e n s e was immunity this 1120 summary petition whether Benefield's State a immunity motion as for the a in judgment. denying the motion The review asserted A l a . Const. for presented failed writ trial for a of court summary defense. Immunity 1901, 4 states " [ t ] h a t the State of 1051667 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 equity." agency, is This C o u r t has or against a suit Alabama State against immunity from State ruled that the suit agents State. in their Dep't i n any c o u r t "[a] suit in their ... official o f Human R e s . , against official State agents So. enjoy 2d a State capacities, capacities." 835 of law or absolute Burgoon 131, 133 v. (Ala. 2002). 1. Section Peace 36-21-41, Officers' undisputed the and 1975, statutorily i s p r o h i b i t e d as a court, therefore, i n denying court against earliest a State against agent an is commission is an the the i n an a motion 835 suit State. So. action against acting Alabama It Accordingly, o f APOSTC. B u r g o o n , must d i s m i s s official against The trial for a summary 2d 133 ("A agency or a State at capacity at the opportunity."). 2. The erred suit the Commission. created APOSTC i n favor of Alabama. creates Training of trial State Code agency judgment the Ala. Standards that APOSTC Benefield in his official Vineses' demands for capacity prospective restoration employment, wages, and b e n e f i t s depend upon t h e o f f i c i a l 5 of scope 1051667 of B e n e f i e l d ' s motion for Benefield's I took with was authority. a summary affidavit, respect In t h e i r judgment, i n which c a p a c i t y as E x e c u t i v e immunity. them, i n not entering State and t h i s taken i n my trial on t h e c l a i m s based upon State Immunity absolute his This limitations APOSTC's o f A P O S T C . " The capacity A S t a t e agent does n o t e n j o y individual was [ 2 ] Vines supra. B. S t a t e - A g e n t in action a n d Doby a summary j u d g m e n t in his official See B u r g o o n , action Secretary attached "The o n l y University official Benefield he s t a t e s : to Faulkner to terminate against Vineses of Joey decision erred the to Benefield's to the termination t o communicate court opposition capacity. on S t a t e - a g e n t immunity. i m m u n i t y when a c t i n g Court has I n Ex p a r t e So. 2 d 3 9 2 , 405 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , a p l u r a l i t y the law of State-agent recognized Cranman, of the Court 792 restated immunity: "A S t a t e agent shall be immune from civil liability i n h i s o r h e r p e r s o n a l c a p a c i t y when t h e c o n d u c t made t h e b a s i s o f t h e c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e a g e n t i s b a s e d upon t h e a g e n t ' s "Under a 'joint-use agreement' ... [ C o m m u n i t y C o l l e g e ] a l l o w e d SWAPA t o o p e r a t e p r o v i d e d c l a s s r o o m space and f a c i l i t i e s - r e l a t p r o v i d e d p a y r o l l s e r v i c e s t o SWAPA." E x p a r t e 2d a t 9 8 3 . 2 6 Faulkner State on i t s p r o p e r t y , e d s e r v i c e s , and B r a n c h , 980 S o . 1051667 "(2) e x e r c i s i n g h i s o r h e r judgment i n the administration of a department or agency of government, i n c l u d i n g , but not l i m i t e d t o , examples such as: " ; "(b) " allocating resources; ; "(d) h i r i n g , f i r i n g , t r a n s f e r r i n g , supervising personnel; or assigning, or "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary i n the f o r e g o i n g statement of the r u l e , a State agent s h a l l n o t b e immune f r o m c i v i l l i a b i l i t y i n h i s or her personal capacity "(2) when the State agent acts willfully, m a l i c i o u s l y , f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad f a i t h , beyond h i s or h e r a u t h o r i t y , o r under a mistaken i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e l a w . " In Ex p a r t e this Court governing "'does Butts, 775 S o . 2 d 173 adopted the State-agent not circumstances "willfully, protect where Cranman immunity. State a a majority of restatement of Thus, officers plaintiff maliciously, (Ala. 2000), and alleges illegally, 7 State-agent the immunity employees that rule under they fraudulently, acted in bad 1051667 faith, beyond interpretation 81, 2d 83 [their] authority, of the law." P h i l l i p s ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ] . ' " Ex p a r t e 1 2 0 3 , 1209 Transp., ( A l a . 200 6)(quoting 764 S o . 2 d 1 2 6 3 , 1268 has prescribed applicability a given the when [ v . Thomas, a mistaken 555 of Lowndesboro, Ex p a r t e i s required, procedures of the l i m i t a t i o n s set of facts under Alabama So. 2d 950 S o . Dep't of (Ala. 2000)). More t h a n mere a l l e g a t i o n Court Town or however, to and determine on S t a t e - a g e n t i m m u n i t y such misconduct this the under i s alleged: "This Court has e s t a b l i s h e d a ' b u r d e n - s h i f t i n g ' p r o c e s s when a p a r t y r a i s e s t h e d e f e n s e o f S t a t e a g e n t i m m u n i t y . G i a m b r o n e v . D o u g l a s , 874 S o . 2 d 1046, 1052 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . I n o r d e r t o c l a i m S t a t e - a g e n t immunity, a State agent bears the burden of demonstrating that the p l a i n t i f f ' s claims a r i s e from a f u n c t i o n that would e n t i t l e the S t a t e agent t o immunity. Giambrone, 874 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 5 2 ; E x p a r t e Wood, 852 S o . 2 d 7 0 5 , 709 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . I f t h e S t a t e a g e n t makes s u c h a s h o w i n g , t h e b u r d e n t h e n s h i f t s t o the plaintiff t o show t h a t t h e S t a t e a g e n t acted w i l l f u l l y , m a l i c i o u s l y , f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad f a i t h , o r b e y o n d h i s o r h e r a u t h o r i t y . G i a m b r o n e , 874 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 5 2 ; Wood, 852 S o . 2 d a t 7 0 9 ; E x p a r t e D a v i s , 721 So. 2 d 6 8 5 , 689 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) . 'A S t a t e a g e n t acts b e y o n d a u t h o r i t y a n d i s t h e r e f o r e n o t immune when he or she " f a i l [ s ] to discharge duties pursuant to d e t a i l e d r u l e s o r r e g u l a t i o n s , s u c h as t h o s e s t a t e d on a c h e c k l i s t . " ' Giambrone, 874 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 5 2 ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e B u t t s , 775 S o . 2 d 1 7 3 , 178 ( A l a . 2 00 0))." Ex parte Estate of Reynolds, 8 94 6 So. 2d 450 , 452 ( A l a . 1051667 2006)(emphasis In t h e i r motion for existed favor rebutted summary j u d g m e n t , [APOSTC As by ... willfully, in and/or under bad of require more the the the not Benefield's argued that appropriate defense State of there a g e n t ' s c o n d u c t meets the by [his] mere in and his conclusory by Cranman. asserting capacit[y scope i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of conduct immunity has] of The that acted authority law." punitive damages individual statements for capacity offered Vineses. "In our r e v i e w of [the p l a i n t i f f ' s ] affidavit, we a r e m i n d f u l t h a t we s h o u l d v i e w a l l f a c t s s t a t e d i n her a f f i d a v i t most f a v o r a b l y t o the p l a i n t i f f , but we a r e a l s o m i n d f u l t h a t ' [ s ] u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i s n o t prevented by "conclusory allegations" or " s p e c u l a t i o n " t h a t a f a c t i s s u e e x i s t s . Bare argument or c o n j e c t u r e w i l l not s a t i s f y a [nonmovant's] burden t o o f f e r f a c t s t o d e f e a t t h e m o t i o n . ' R i g g s v. B e l l , 564 So. 2d 8 8 2 , 885 ( A l a . 1990) (citations omitted). T h i s C o u r t has r e i t e r a t e d t h i s p r i n c i p l e f r e q u e n t l y 9 this be individual beyond at in may issue compensatory Benefield's than is immunity faith, for Vineses i m m u n i t y as p r o v i d e d [his] a mistaken demands certain the above, in the Benefield] to State-agent addressed t o APOSTC a n d of m a t e r i a l f a c t such t h a t judgment a showing t h a t the "Benefield The and discussed exceptions Vineses response i n opposition "genuine i s s u e s of time." a added). by 1051667 s i n c e R i g g s , c i t i n g t h a t c a s e : M c G a r r y v. Flournoy, 624 So. 2d 1 3 5 9 , 1361 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ; Crowne I n v s . , I n c . v . B r y a n t , 638 So. 2d 8 7 3 , 878 ( A l a . 1994) ('[M]ere conclusory allegations or speculation that fact i s s u e s e x i s t w i l l not d e f e a t a properly supported summary judgment motion, and bare argument or conjecture does not s a t i s f y the nonmoving party's burden to o f f e r f a c t s or to d e f e a t the motion.'); B l a c k b u r n v . S t a t e F a r m A u t o . I n s . Co., 652 So. 2d 1140, 1142 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ; H u f f v . U n i t e d I n s . Co. of A m e r i c a , 674 So. 2d 2 1 , 24 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) ; a n d R e i d v . J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y , 672 So. 2d 1 2 8 5 , 1290 (Ala. 1995) ('[the nonmovant's] s t a t e m e n t s are c o n c l u s o r y . Thus, those statements do not constitute substantial e v i d e n c e and, t h e r e f o r e , do n o t w a r r a n t submitting [ h i s ] c l a i m t o t h e j u r y ' ) . T h i s C o u r t h a s s t a t e d : '[A party opposing a summary-judgment motion] must present f a c t s , not merely inferences based upon b e l i e f , t h a t c o u n t e r f a c t s o f f e r e d i n s u p p o r t of the m o t i o n . ' D a v i s v . F o r d M o t o r C r e d i t Co., 599 So. 2d 1123, 1125 (Ala. 1992)." Brown ex v. St. (Ala. 2004). 238-39 r e l . Brown The Vineses evidence indicating maliciously, authority "hiring, personnel." their a that fraudulently, when he firing, the had in the So. 2d allegations, trial s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t as court the bad transferring, 792 Hosp., to B e n e f i e l d 10 faith, 2d The to meet have g r a n t e d 227, presenting willfully, beyond associated 405. in his of or assigning, at So. acted duties failed should 899 burden Benefield performed Cranman, conclusory Therefore, Vincent's or his with supervising Vineses, their the with burden. motion for individual capacity 1051667 based upon the prima facie showing he made of State-agent immunity. Moreover, evidence for stated i n d i c a t i n g that APOSTC, Vineses' the previously, Benefield e n t i t y that employment. offered mistaken in bad faith, employees, terminate law granted and dismiss the official court his writ claims no a mere termination the Vineses when he of the not Benefield reported of agent have authority, or the a l l SWAPA no acted under a decision part-time Vineses. Conclusion petition issued; against the for the trial APOSTC a n d subject-matter a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t as writ court against State mandamus is is directed to Benefield in his immunity, the jurisdiction to the of over claims against Smith, Bolin, trial them, and Benefield individual capacity. P E T I T I O N GRANTED; WRIT JJ., offered the his c a p a c i t y , b e c a u s e , b a s e d on acquired to enter in the more t h a n employment IV. the Vineses i n d i c a t i n g that beyond the i n c l u d i n g the Consequently, was Consequently, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of APOSTC t o the directed s u b s t a n t i a l evidence willfully, of as Cobb, C.J., concur. Woodall and and Lyons, Murdock, ISSUED. Stuart, J J . , concur 11 i n the result. and Shaw, 1051667 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e I 1100 concur (concurring i n the i n the r e s u l t . ( A l a . 2007) (Murdock, result). See E x p a r t e J . , concurring 12 S a w y e r , 984 i n the So. 2d result).

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.