Colbert Cty. Bd. of Edu. v. James
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Defendants the Colbert County Board of Education ("the Board"); and the individual members of the Board and members of the Colbert County High School appealed a trial court's judgment that granted Plaintiff Felecia James's motion for a preliminary injunction. On or about May 21, 2010, an incident occurred at Colbert County High School (CCHS) involving J.H., Plaintiff's minor child, and another minor enrolled in CCHS. The details of the incident were disputed, but they led the assistant principal of the school to suspend both students for three days for allegedly fighting on school property during school hours. Plaintiff appeared before the Board to discuss the situation. The Board apparently took no action, and Plaintiff "individually and as mother and guardian of J.H." sued the Board and the individually named defendants asserting state-law and federal-law claims She also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the Board members in their official capacities were immune from the state-law claims filed against them insofar as those claims sought monetary damages. As such, the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over those state-law claims against the officials in their official capacities. However, the Board members were not immune from Plaintiff's state-law claims insofar as she sought injunctive relief based upon the Board members' alleged fraud, bad faith, or actions that were beyond the Board members' authority or that were taken under a mistaken interpretation of law. The Court noted that the Board and its members were not immune from the federal-law claims filed against them. Based on the foregoing, insofar as the Board appealed the preliminary injunction against it based upon the state-law claims filed by Plaintiff, the Supreme Court dismissed their appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because the Court reversed the preliminary injunction, the Court declined to order the trial court to vacate the preliminary injunction entered against the Board insofar as it was based on those claims.
Download PDF
Rel: 10/21/2011 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 1100181 C o l b e r t County B o a r d of Education e t a l . v. Felecia James, i n d i v i d u a l l y Appeal PER CURIAM. and as mother o f J.H., a m i n o r child from C o l b e r t C i r c u i t (CV-10-900134) Court 1100181 The the C o l b e r t County Board individual superintendent Witt, members of Education of the of the Colbert principal of Colbert B u r b a n k , an a s s i s t a n t p r i n c i p a l (hereinafter named referred defendants"), Board; County County Billy 1 School High System; School; from as the t r i a l "the dismiss judgment the appeal i n part, reverse and court's Jeff School judgment injunction. the t r i a l entering the preliminary injunction, Jackie individually g r a n t i n g F e l e c i a James's motion f o r a p r e l i m i n a r y We and Hudson, a t C o l b e r t County High to collectively appeal ("the B o a r d " ) ; court's and remand t h e cause. Facts and P r o c e d u r a l History On o r a b o u t May 2 1 , 2 0 1 0 , an i n c i d e n t o c c u r r e d County High child, and another details students property the School of which suspended involving J.H., James's m i n o r e n r o l l e d i n CCHS. are i n dispute, f o r three during ("CCHS") days school students minor The i n c i d e n t , t h e l e d Burbank to suspend for allegedly hours. at Colbert fighting on both school Burbank a l s o r e q u i r e d each of to attend the Colbert County School The i n d i v i d u a l B o a r d members a r e L i n d a E v a n s , p r e s i d e n t , a n d C h a r l e s C a r t e r , M a r y M o o r e , Max E a d y , J o e L a t h a m , a n d Frank Williamson. 1 2 1100181 System's days school t h e 2010-2011 a notation that he school had school placed been because I t also i n J.H.'s academic suspended on J u n e 20, guardian 2010, of J.H.," defendants James, sued asserting state-law damages, punitive damages, t o w h i c h [ J a m e s ] may preliminary in pertinent there effect alternative a motion injunction, part, as for a and as mother and t h e i n d i v i d u a l l y and federal-law declaratory costs, the s i t u a t i o n t o o k no a c t i o n , "individually relief, filed that i n the apparently the Board injunctive James year, to the the Board to discuss The B o a r d seeking relief school appears file placed f o r 15 of f i g h t i n g . 24, 2010. July and school") academic year. James a p p e a r e d b e f o r e on ("the a l t e r n a t i v e at the beginning of the f o l l o w i n g i.e., was alternative relief, interest, be e n t i t l e d . " temporary 2 claims and, and named and compensatory and "any On J u l y restraining and a permanent i n j u n c t i o n , other 21, 2010, order, a alleging, follows: "1. [The Board and t h e i n d i v i d u a l l y named d e f e n d a n t s h a v e ] w r o n g f u l l y i m p o s e d d i s c i p l i n e on [J.H.]. 2 which J a m e s f i l e d an a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t on A u g u s t t h e B o a r d a n d i n d i v i d u a l l y named d e f e n d a n t s 3 26, 2010, answered. 1100181 "2. [ J . H . ' s ] s c h o o l r e c o r d w r o n g f u l l y shows f o u n d t o be f i g h t i n g a t s c h o o l . was he "3. [The Board and the individually named defendants] i n t e n d on f u r t h e r w r o n g f u l l y i m p o s i n g d i s c i p l i n e on [ J . H . ] w h e n s c h o o l b e g i n s on M o n d a y , August 9, 2010 and [the Board i s ] scheduled to i m p o s e t h r e e (3) w e e k s o f t h e f i r s t s i x (6) w e e k g r a d i n g p e r i o d i n s u s p e n s i o n / a l t e r n a t i v e s c h o o l due to the wrongful application of the [Board's] p o l i c i e s , p r o c e d u r e s , a n d p r a c t i c e s as w e l l as [ t h e Board and the individually named defendants'] f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e [J.H.] p r o c e d u r a l and s u b s t a n t i v e due p r o c e s s . "4. merits. A.[ ] [ J a m e s ] h a s a l i k e l i h o o d o f s u c c e s s on t h e See c o m p l a i n t a t t a c h e d h e r e t o as Exhibit 3 "5. There is no adequate remedy available by law. the "6. [J.H.] w i l l injunction. suffer i r r e p a r a b l e harm w i t h o u t " 7 . The h a r d s h i p i m p o s e d on t h e [ B o a r d a n d t h e i n d i v i d u a l l y named d e f e n d a n t s ] w i l l n o t u n r e a s o n a b l y outweigh the b e n e f i t a c c r u i n g to the r e q u e s t i n g party. "8. A t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r and i n j u n c t i o n w i l l not p r e j u d i c e t h e [Board and t h e i n d i v i d u a l l y named d e f e n d a n t s ] . " 9 . The t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r , p r e l i m i n a r y injunction and permanent injunction are proper. S o u t h T r u s t B a n k o f A l a b a m a , N.A. v . W e b b - S t i l e s C o . , 931 So. 2d 7 0 6 , 708 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o t i n g Ormco C o r p . A l t h o u g h James i n d i c a t e d i n h e r m o t i o n t h a t t h e c o m p l a i n t was a t t a c h e d t o t h e m o t i o n , i t d o e s n o t a p p e a r f r o m t h e r e c o r d t h a t a n y t h i n g was a t t a c h e d t o h e r m o t i o n . 3 4 1100181 v . J o h n s , 869 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 9 , 1 1 1 3 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n P e r l e y v . T a p s c a n , I n c . , 646 S o . 2 d 5 8 5 , 587 (Ala. l994)). "10. [James] h a s made a d i l i g e n t effort to contact [ t h e Board] t o d i s c u s s r e s o l u t i o n without success. " 1 1 . No b o n d i s n e c e s s a r y b e c a u s e no damage t o the [ B o a r d a n d t h e i n d i v i d u a l l y named d e f e n d a n t s ] will attach with the entry of a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction. "WHEREFORE, premises considered, [James] respectfully requests the Court grant a temporary restraining o r d e r and i n j u n c t i o n prohibiting the [ B o a r d a n d t h e i n d i v i d u a l l y named d e f e n d a n t s ] f r o m i m p o s i n g w r o n g f u l d i s c i p l i n e on [J.H.] a n d r e q u i r i n g removal of references to wrongfully imposed d i s c i p l i n e on [J.H.] p e n d i n g f u r t h e r o r d e r o f t h i s Court." j_ The II Board and t h e i n d i v i d u a l l y a response they t o James's m o t i o n didfile an a n s w e r James's m o t i o n On July defendants named d e f e n d a n t s f o rinjunctive t o James's was s e t f o r A u g u s t 29, 2010, t h e Board filed a motion absolute immunity immunity on t h e p a r t relief, complaint. although A h e a r i n g on 3, 2 0 1 0 . and t h e i n d i v i d u a l l y f o r a summary on t h e p a r t d i d not f i l e judgment of the Board of the i n d i v i d u a l l y named asserting and S t a t e - a g e n t named defendants. 4 I t i s u n c l e a r f r o m t h e c o m p l a i n t w h e t h e r James a s s e r t s c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e i n d i v i d u a l l y named d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e i r personal capacities. H o w e v e r , i n t h e m o t i o n f o r a summary 4 5 1100181 A hearing continued on to January Following for t h e summary-judgment injunctive 10, 2 0 1 1 . the August relief, injunction against defendants on A u g u s t was s e t and then 5 3, 2 0 1 0 , h e a r i n g o n J a m e s ' s the t r i a l the motion Board motion court entered a preliminary and the 4, 2 0 1 0 , h o l d i n g a s individually named follows: "Upon consideration of the evidence and submissions, the Court finds that [James] will suffer irreparable harm w i t h o u t the injunction; [ J a m e s ] h a s no a d e q u a t e r e m e d y a t l a w ; [ J a m e s ] h a s at least a r e a s o n a b l e c h a n c e o f s u c c e s s on t h e u l t i m a t e m e r i t s ; a n d t h e h a r d s h i p i m p o s e d on t h e [ B o a r d a n d t h e i n d i v i d u a l l y named d e f e n d a n t s ] will not u n r e a s o n a b l y outweigh t h e b e n e f i t a c c r u i n g t o [James]. SouthTrust Bank of Alabama, N.A. v. W e b b - S t i l e s C o . , 931 S o . 2 d 7 0 6 , 708 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o t i n g Ormco C o r p . v . J o h n s , 869 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 9 , 1 1 1 3 (Ala. 2003), q u o t i n g i n t u r n P e r l e y v. Tapscan, Inc., 646 S o . 2 d 5 8 5 , 587 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ) . judgment those defendants argue t h a t they a r e e n t i t l e d t o State-agent immunity, which a p p l i e s o n l y t o c l a i m s a g a i n s t State agents a c t i n g t h e i r p e r s o n a l c a p a c i t i e s . See Ex p a r t e C r a n m a n , 792 S o . 2 d 392 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . O n A u g u s t 1 2 , 2 0 1 0 , b e f o r e t h e h e a r i n g on t h e B o a r d a n d t h e i n d i v i d u a l l y named d e f e n d a n t s ' s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , t h e B o a r d a n d t h e i n d i v i d u a l l y named d e f e n d a n t s petitioned t h i s C o u r t f o r a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o e n t e r a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t on t h e i r b e h a l f b a s e d on t h e d e f e n s e s of a b s o l u t e i m m u n i t y and S t a t e - a g e n t i m m u n i t y . This Court denied the Board and t h e i n d i v i d u a l l y named defendants' p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus b y o r d e r o f t h e C o u r t o n J a n u a r y 6, 2 0 1 1 . E x p a r t e C o l b e r t C o u n t y B d . o f E d u c . (No. 1 0 9 1 5 4 5 , J a n u a r y 6, 2 0 1 1 ) . 5 6 1100181 "Specifically, [J.H.] w i l l s u f f e r irreparable harm w i t h i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f d i s c i p l i n e ( t h r e e weeks of a l t e r n a t i v e s c h o o l ) c u r r e n t l y i m p o s e d as i t w i l l c a r r y f o r w a r d t o t h e s c h o o l i n w h i c h he i s n e w l y enrolled i f the Court does not enjoin the implementation of said d i s c i p l i n e . [James] has a t l e a s t a r e a s o n a b l e c h a n c e o f s u c c e s s on t h e u l t i m a t e merits that [ J . H . ] was d e n i e d d u e p r o c e s s o r t h e conduct o f t h e [Board and t h e i n d i v i d u a l l y named defendants] otherwise v i o l a t e s the C o n s t i t u t i o n or laws of the U n i t e d S t a t e s , or the C o n s t i t u t i o n of t h i s State, or laws, r u l e s , or r e g u l a t i o n s of t h i s State enacted or promulgated f o r the purpose of r e g u l a t i n g the a c t i v i t i e s of a governmental agency; o r t h e [ B o a r d a n d t h e i n d i v i d u a l l y named d e f e n d a n t s ] 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 faith, beyond h i s or her a u t h o r i t y , or under a m i s t a k e n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e l a w . Ex p a r t e J o n e s , [52 So. 3d 475] ( A l a . 2010)(quoting Ex parte C r a n m a n , 792 S o . 2 d 392 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ; E x p a r t e R i z k , 791 S o . 2 d 911 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . The i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f s a i d d i s c i p l i n e w i l l a l s o l i k e l y c a u s e ... J . H . t o s u f f e r i r r e p a r a b l e harm t o h i s r i g h t t o e d u c a t i o n and o p p o r t u n i t i e s r e s u l t i n g [ t h e r e f r o m ] due t o t h e s t i g m a a n d d i s c i p l i n e t h a t i s r e c o r d e d ... i n h i s s t u d e n t r e c o r d s . [ J . H . ] may l o s e h i s m e m b e r s h i p i n leadership and extra-curricular activities in a d d i t i o n t o l o s i n g t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o be c o l l e g e educated or accepted otherwise i n school. Therefore, t h e [ B o a r d a n d t h e i n d i v i d u a l l y named d e f e n d a n t s ] are h e r e b y e n j o i n e d f r o m i m p o s i n g t h e d i s c i p l i n e t o [J.H.] as i n d i c a t e d i n [J.H.'s] ' N o t i c e o f S t u d e n t S u s p e n s i o n ' and a r e h e r e b y d i r e c t e d t o remove any and a l l r e f e r e n c e t o s a i d d i s c i p l i n e and ' f i g h t i n g ' f r o m [ J . H . ' s ] s c h o o l r e c o r d s . The C o u r t a l s o h e r e b y f i n d s t h a t t h e r e i s no h a r d s h i p , p r e j u d i c e , damage or h a r m t o t h e [ B o a r d a n d t h e i n d i v i d u a l l y named defendants] i n ordering said i n j u n c t i o n . Otherwise stated, the hardship to the [Board and t h e i n d i v i d u a l l y named d e f e n d a n t s ] w i l l n o t u n r e a s o n a b l y outweigh the b e n e f i t a c c r u i n g to [J.H.]." 7 1100181 On the August 4, 2010, the the trial court judgment i s s u i n g the p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n , the individually motion pursuant named to defendants, Rule argued that which t h e r e was i t could B o a r d and argued, no the i n d i v i d u a l l y the t r i a l court erred injunction relying September been solely and affidavits that the to her court] hearing on James 59(e) response 2010, b u t was never ruled Rule the against and a and response James states preliminary her relief. named d e f e n d a n t s ' motion. they defendants complaint filed to the summary-judgment attached i n her b r i e f 3, 2010." James's b r i e f , 59(e) motion was c o n t i n u e d t o J a n u a r y 10, on upon numerous on appeal "were p r e s e n t a t t h e h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e on A u g u s t the James's 17, those a f f i d a v i t s [trial on 2010, alter, court Those the a defendants injunction in entering injunctive Rule to Those submitted. requesting B o a r d and t h e i n d i v i d u a l l y motion P., and filed named d e f e n d a n t s b e c a u s e , argued that motion the Board no e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e t r i a l had On Civ. have e n t e r e d a p r e l i m i n a r y entered Burbank, c o u r t ' s judgment. evidence unverified except 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. amend, o r v a c a t e t h e t r i a l the same d a y Rule 59(e) motion; 8 set a t p. 37. f o r September 2011. The thus, that trial A 22, court motion was 1100181 denied 59.1, by operation Ala. defendants R. of law on Civ. P. The Board appealed on November Standard This court's Isle, Court set f o r t h the d e c i s i o n to enter LLC November v. Adkins, 12 and 8, of the See individually Rule named Review standard 3d 2010. 2010. for a preliminary So. 2, 1173, reviewing a injunction in 1175-76 (Ala. trial Holiday 2008): "We h a v e o f t e n s t a t e d : 'The d e c i s i o n t o g r a n t o r to deny a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n i s w i t h i n the t r i a l court's sound d i s c r e t i o n . In r e v i e w i n g an order granting a preliminary injunction, the Court determines whether the trial court exceeded that discretion.' S o u t h T r u s t B a n k o f A l a b a m a , N.A. v. W e b b - S t i l e s Co., 931 So. 2d 7 0 6 , 709 (Ala. 2005). "A p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n s h o u l d be i s s u e d o n l y when t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g an i n j u n c t i o n d e m o n s t r a t e s : "'"(1) that without the injunction the [party] would s u f f e r i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y ; (2) t h a t t h e [ p a r t y ] h a s no a d e q u a t e r e m e d y at law; (3) t h a t t h e [ p a r t y ] h a s a t l e a s t a reasonable chance of success on the u l t i m a t e m e r i t s o f h i s c a s e ; and (4) t h a t t h e h a r d s h i p i m p o s e d on t h e [ p a r t y o p p o s i n g the preliminary injunction] by the i n j u n c t i o n would not u n r e a s o n a b l y outweigh the b e n e f i t a c c r u i n g to the [ p a r t y seeking the i n j u n c t i o n ] . " ' "Ormco C o r p . v . J o h n s , 869 So. 2d 1 1 0 9 , 2 003)(quoting P e r l e y v. T a p s c a n , I n c . , 5 8 5 , 587 (Ala. 1994)). 9 1113 (Ala. 646 So. 2d 1100181 "To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s issuance of a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n i s grounded o n l y in questions o f l a w b a s e d on u n d i s p u t e d facts, our longstanding rule that we review an injunction s o l e l y to determine whether the t r i a l c o u r t exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n s h o u l d n o t a p p l y . We f i n d the r u l e applied by the United States Supreme Court in s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s t o be p e r s u a s i v e : 'We r e v i e w the District Court's legal r u l i n g s de novo and its ultimate decision to issue the preliminary i n j u n c t i o n f o r a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n . ' G o n z a l e s v. O Centro E s p i r i t a Beneficente U n i a o do V e g e t a l , 54 6 U.S. 4 1 8 , 4 2 8 , 126 S. C t . 1 2 1 1 , 163 L. E d . 2 d 1017 (2006); see a l s o J u s t i c e M u r d o c k ' s s p e c i a l w r i t i n g while sitting as a j u d g e on the Court of Civil A p p e a l s i n C i t y o f Dothan v. E i g h t y - F o u r West, I n c . , 871 So. 2 d 54, 60 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) (Murdock, J., concurring specially on application for rehearing) (cited with approval i n McGlathery v. Richardson, 944 So. 2d 968 , 970 (Ala. Civ. App. 2 006))." Discussion I. Initially, Immunity although not m e m b e r s , we must consider are from the immune Atkinson that issues raised Ala. v. State, o f § 14, a t any Const. n e v e r be time 1901, argued whether state-law 986 So. 2d by provides made a d e f e n d a n t 408, a court the 1901, i n any the Board Board and filed 411 court State of law its i t s members ( A l a . 2007) State and against immunity e x mero m o t u " ) . " [ t ] h a t the 10 by claims A l a . Const. ... Issues them. (holding "may be Section 14, of Alabama shall or e q u i t y . " In 1100181 Ex p a r t e Monroe C o u n t y 2010), this Court B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n , 48 S o . 3 d 621 ( A l a . held: "'"Section 14, A l a . C o n s t . 1901, p r o v i d e s ' [ t ] h a t t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a s h a l l n e v e r b e made a defendant i n any c o u r t o f law o r equity.' This section affords the State and i t s agencies an 'absolute' immunity from s u i t i n any c o u r t . Ex p a r t e M o b i l e C o u n t y D e p ' t o f Human R e s . , 815 S o . 2 d 527, 530 ( A l a . 2001) (stating that A l a . Const. 1 9 0 1 , § 14, c o n f e r s on t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a and i t s agencies absolute immunity from s u i t i n any c o u r t ) ; Ex p a r t e T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y , 7 9 6 So. 2 d 1100 , 1 1 0 3 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ('Under A l a . C o n s t . o f 1 9 0 1 , § 14, the State o f Alabama has a b s o l u t e immunity from l a w s u i t s . This a b s o l u t e immunity extends t o arms o r a g e n c i e s o f t h e s t a t e ....'). Indeed, this Court has described § 14 a s a n 'almost invincible' 'wall' of immunity. A l a b a m a S t a t e D o c k s v . S a x o n , 631 So. 2 d 9 4 3 , 946 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) . T h i s 'wall of immunity' i s 'nearly impregnable,' Patterson v. Gladwin Corp., 835 S o . 2 d 1 3 7 , 142 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) , a n d b a r s ' a l m o s t every conceivable type of s u i t . ' Hutchinson v. Board o f T r u s t e e s o f U n i v . o f A l a . , 288 A l a . 2 0 , 23, 256 So. 2d 2 8 1 , 283 ( 1 9 7 1 ) . Moreover, i f an a c t i o n i s an action against the State within the m e a n i n g o f § 14, s u c h a c a s e 'presents a question of 11 1100181 subject-matter jurisdiction, which cannot be waived or c o n f e r r e d by c o n s e n t . ' P a t t e r s o n , 835 S o . 2 d a t 1 4 2 - 4 3 . " " ' H a l e y v . B a r b o u r C o u n t y , 885 S o . 2 d 7 8 3 , 788 ( A l a . 2004) (emphasis added). For p u r p o s e s o f § 14 i m m u n i t y , c o u n t y b o a r d s o f education are considered agencies of the S t a t e . L o u v i e r e v. M o b i l e County Bd. o f Educ. , 670 So. 2d 873, 877 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) ( " C o u n t y b o a r d s o f e d u c a t i o n , as l o c a l agencies of the State, enjoy [§ 14] i m m u n i t y . " ) . Thus, t h i s C o u r t has h e l d t h a t c o u n t y b o a r d s o f e d u c a t i o n a r e immune f r o m t o r t a c t i o n s . See Brown v . C o v i n g t o n C o u n t y Bd. o f Educ., 524 S o . 2 d 6 2 3 , 625 ( A l a . 1988); H u t t v. Etowah County Bd. o f Educ., 454 S o . 2 d 9 7 3 , 974 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) . ' "Ex p a r t e J a c k s o n C o u n t y B d . o f E d u c . , [1099] a t 1102-03 [ ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) ] . 4 So. 3d " I n E x p a r t e H a l e C o u n t y B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n , 14 So. 3 d 844 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) , t h i s C o u r t r e v i s i t e d t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r c o u n t y b o a r d s o f e d u c a t i o n w e r e immune f r o m s u i t , o v e r r u l i n g Sims v. Etowah County B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n , 337 S o . 2 d 1 3 1 0 ( A l a . 1 9 7 6 ) , a n d K i m m o n s v . J e f f e r 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 , 204 A l a . 384 , 85 S o . 774 (1920 ) , a n d s t a t i n g that 'because county boards of education are l o c a l agencies of the State, they are clothed i n constitutional immunity from s u i t ' and t h a t t h e immunity a c c o r d e d a c o u n t y board of education i s absolute." 48 So. 3d absolutely at 624-25. immune u n d e r against i t , the t r i a l claims against the Therefore, § 14 f r o m court Board, 12 the the state-law lacked and because jurisdiction i t s judgment Board i s claims filed over those entering a 1100181 p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e B o a r d b a s e d upon t h e s t a t e law claims i s void; from the t r i a l dismissed. (Ala. be are court's dismissed"). under due to i n s o f a r as t h e B o a r d C i t i z e n s Bank, 879 S o . 2 d 5 3 5 , 540 " t h a t an a p p e a l f r o m a v o i d j u d g m e n t Further, based upon § 14, t h e s t a t e - l a w be i s appealing v o i d j u d g m e n t , t h e a p p e a l i s due t o be See Ex p a r t e 2003)(holding immunity thus, dismissed for the Board's claims lack against of must absolute the Board subject-matter jurisdiction. As to the Board members i n their official capacities, t h i s Court has h e l d i n Alabama Department o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n v. Harbert I n t e r n a t i o n a l , I n c . , 990 S o . 2 d 8 3 1 , 839 ( A l a . 2008): " N o t o n l y i s t h e S t a t e immune f r o m s u i t u n d e r § 14, b u t ' [ t ] h e S t a t e c a n n o t be s u e d i n d i r e c t l y b y s u i n g an o f f i c e r i n h i s o r h e r o f f i c i a l capacity L y o n s [ v . R i v e r R o a d C o n s t r . , I n c . ] , 858 S o . 2d [257,] 261 [ ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ] . ' S e c t i o n 14 p r o h i b i t s actions against state officers i n their official capacities when those actions are, i n effect, a c t i o n s a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e . ' Haley v. Barbour County, 885 S o . 2 d 7 8 3 , 788 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) . To determine w h e t h e r an a c t i o n a g a i n s t a S t a t e o f f i c e r i s , i n f a c t , one a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e , t h i s C o u r t c o n s i d e r s "'whether "a result favorable to the p l a i n t i f f would d i r e c t l y a f f e c t a c o n t r a c t or p r o p e r t y r i g h t of t h e S t a t e , " M i t c h e l l [v. Davis, 598 S o . 2 d 8 01 , 806 (Ala. 13 1100181 1992)], whether the defendant i s simply a "conduit" through which the p l a i n t i f f seeks r e c o v e r y o f damages f r o m t h e S t a t e , B a r n e s v . D a l e , 530 So. 2 d 7 7 0 , 784 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) , a n d w h e t h e r "a j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t t h e o f f i c e r would d i r e c t l y a f f e c t the f i n a n c i a l s t a t u s of the S t a t e t r e a s u r y , " Lyons [v. R i v e r R o a d C o n s t r . , I n c . ] , 858 So. 2 d [ 2 5 7 ] a t 261 [ ( A l a . 2003)].' "Haley, 885 So. 2d a t 7 88. A d d i t i o n a l l y , ' [ i ] n determining whether an action against a state o f f i c e r i s b a r r e d b y § 14, t h e C o u r t c o n s i d e r s t h e n a t u r e o f t h e s u i t o r t h e r e l i e f demanded, n o t t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e o f f i c e o f t h e p e r s o n a g a i n s t whom t h e s u i t i s b r o u g h t . ' Ex p a r t e C a r t e r , 395 So. 2 d 6 5 , 67-68 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) . " The under § insofar the B o a r d members i n t h e i r 14 state-law due court claims lacked state-law subject-matter monetary official c a p a c i t i e s a r e immune claims seek monetary seeking members i n t h e i r t o be filed damages. against Thus, jurisdiction damages capacities, them because over the against the claims are against the filed those dismissed. Insofar Board the as t h o s e c l a i m s trial Board from official as James members i n t h e i r seeks injunctive official relief capacities, we note: "The i m m u n i t y a f f o r d e d S t a t e o f f i c e r s s u e d i n their official capacities, however, is not unlimited: " ' [ S e c t i o n 14] i m m u n i t y f r o m s u i t d o e s n o t extend, i n a l l i n s t a n c e s , to o f f i c e r s of 14 1100181 the State acting in their official c a p a c i t y . U n z i c k e r v . S t a t e , 346 S o . 2 d 931 (Ala. 1977). In l i m i t e d circumstances the w r i t o f mandamus w i l l l i e t o r e q u i r e a c t i o n of state o f f i c i a l s . This i s true where discretion i s exhausted and t h a t which r e m a i n s t o be done i s a m i n i s t e r i a l a c t . See H a r d i n v. F u l l i l o v e E x c a v a t i n g Co., I n c . , 353 S o . 2 d 7 7 9 ( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) ; T e n n e s s e e & C o o s a R.R. C o . v . M o o r e , 36 A l a . 3 7 1 ( 1 8 6 0 ) . A c t i o n may b e e n j o i n e d i f i l l e g a l , f r a u d u l e n t , u n a u t h o r i z e d , done i n b a d f a i t h or under a m i s t a k e n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f l a w . W a l l a c e v. Board o f E d u c a t i o n o f Montgomery Co., 280 A l a . 6 3 5 , 197 S o . 2 d 428 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . I f judgment o r d i s c r e t i o n i s abused, and exercised i n an a r b i t r a r y o r c a p r i c i o u s m a n n e r , mandamus w i l l l i e t o compel a p r o p e r e x e r c i s e t h e r e o f . The w r i t w i l l n o t lie t o d i r e c t t h e manner o f e x e r c i s i n g discretion and n e i t h e r will i t l i eto compel t h e performance of a duty in a c e r t a i n manner where t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h a t d u t y r e s t s u p o n an a s c e r t a i n m e n t o f facts, or the existence of conditions, to be d e t e r m i n e d b y a n o f f i c e r i n h i s j u d g m e n t o r d i s c r e t i o n . S e e B a r n e s v . S t a t e , 274 Ala. 7 0 5 , 151 S o . 2 d 619 ( 1 9 6 3 ) . ' "McDowell-Purcell, (Ala. 1979). Inc. "Moreover, c e r t a i n b a r r e d by § 14: v. Bass, causes 370 S o . 2 d 9 4 2 , 944 of action are not "'"There a r e four general categories of a c t i o n s w h i c h i n A l a n d v . G r a h a m , 287 A l a . 226, 250 S o . 2 d 677 (1971 ) , we s t a t e d do n o t come w i t h i n t h e p r o h i b i t i o n o f § 1 4 : (1) actions brought to compel State o f f i c i a l s to perform their l e g a l duties; (2) actions brought to enjoin State 15 1100181 o f f i c i a l s from enforcing an u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l a w ; (3) a c t i o n s t o c o m p e l State officials to perform ministerial a c t s ; and (4) a c t i o n s b r o u g h t u n d e r the Declaratory Judgments Act ... seeking construction of a statute and its a p p l i c a t i o n i n a g i v e n s i t u a t i o n . 287 A l a . a t 2 2 9 - 2 3 0 , 250 So. 2 d 677. O t h e r a c t i o n s w h i c h a r e n o t p r o h i b i t e d b y § 14 a r e : (5) v a l i d inverse condemnation a c t i o n s brought against State officials in their r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c a p a c i t y ; and (6) actions f o r i n j u n c t i o n o r damages b r o u g h t a g a i n s t State officials in their representative capacity and individually where i t was a l l e g e d t h a t t h e y had a c t e d f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad f a i t h , beyond t h e i r a u t h o r i t y or i n a m i s t a k e n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of law. W a l l a c e Board of E d u c a t i o n of Montgomery County, v ... 280 A l a . [635] a t 639, 197 So. 2d 428 [(1967)]; Unzicker v . S t a t e , 34 6 So. 2d 931, 933 (Ala. 1977); Engelhardt v. Jenkins, 273 Ala. 352, 141 So. 2d 193 (1962)."' "Drummond Co. v . A l a b a m a D e p ' t o f T r a n s p . , 937 So. 2 d 56, 58 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o t i n g [Ex p a r t e ] C a r t e r , 395 So. 2d [65,] 68 [(Ala. 1980)]) (emphasis o m i t t e d ) . T h e s e a c t i o n s a r e s o m e t i m e s r e f e r r e d t o as ' e x c e p t i o n s ' t o § 14; h o w e v e r , i n a c t u a l i t y these actions are simply not considered t o be actions ' " a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e " f o r § 14 p u r p o s e s . ' P a t t e r s o n v . G l a d w i n C o r p . , 835 So. 2 d 1 3 7 , 142 (Ala. 2002). T h i s C o u r t has q u a l i f i e d t h o s e ' e x c e p t i o n s , ' noting t h a t ' " [ a ] n a c t i o n i s one a g a i n s t t h e [ S ] t a t e w h e n a f a v o r a b l e r e s u l t f o r the p l a i n t i f f would d i r e c t l y a f f e c t a c o n t r a c t or p r o p e r t y r i g h t of the S t a t e , or would r e s u l t i n the p l a i n t i f f ' s r e c o v e r y o f money f r o m t h e [ S ] t a t e . " ' A l a b a m a A g r i c . & Mech. U n i v . v. J o n e s , 895 So. 2d 8 67 , 873 ( A l a . 2004) (quoting S h o a l s Cmty. C o l l . v. C o l a g r o s s , 674 So. 2 d 1311, 16 1100181 1314 ( A l a . C i v . App. 990 Harbert, 1995)) (emphasis added i n 839-40. James 2d at alleged challenged members, So. in actions her amended of a l l the beyond [their] a u t h o r i t y , or of law." Therefore, the under § 14 from James's injunctive relief alleged fraud, faith, bad B o a r d members' a u t h o r i t y or interpretation We also immune u n d e r them. See Comm'rs, of 14 F.3d "state sovereign claims against r a i s e d by that from Abusaid 405 the in the Board are not immune the members' Board that (11th were beyond under a is the mistaken i t s members claims County Cir. Further, no named d e f e n d a n t s would 17 not filed Bd. bar to County operate court, to bar § that 1983 immunity, in their trial not against of State-agent the are 2 005)(holding p r i n c i p l e s are pending before appeal, and federal-law 1315 county"). individually this faith, James were t a k e n Hillsborough 1298, judgment motion s t i l l raised v. the immunity a i n bad i n s o f a r as upon actions that Board law. note § members claims based or the a mistaken i n t e r p r e t a t i o n Board state-law that i n c l u d i n g the fraudulent, under the seeking complaint defendants, "were w i l l f u l , m a l i c i o u s , Jones)." summarybut not actions 1100181 against State agents seeking i n j u n c t i v e or declaratory See M a t t h e w s v . A l a b a m a A g r i c . 698 (Ala. 2000)(noting declaratory doctrine merits relief against of State-agent On appeal, argue discretion when without a State the i n d i v i d u a l l y i n j u n c t i v e or by t h e T h u s , we now a d d r e s s t h e "[t]he the [t]rial individually [c]ourt [i]njunction of i t s issuance." defendants' brief, named abused i t s i t s [p]reliminary i n support named Injunction and i t issued any e v i d e n c e seeking injunction. Board that 787 S o . 2 d 6 9 1 , agent i s not barred Preliminary the defendants an a c t i o n immunity). of the p r e l i m i n a r y II. and that & Mech. U n i v . , relief. The a t p. Board 7. We agree. This law, Court has [one r e q u e s t i n g establish support a number the held of elements issuance ( A l a . 1983). court's the trial issuance court's "[u]nder prevailing Alabama a preliminary injunction i s ] obligated to Teleprompter of Mobile, 20 that, of a as conditions preliminary necessary to injunction." I n c . v . B a y o u C a b l e TV, 428 S o . 2 d 1 7 , In Bayou Cable, of a preliminary issuance this Court injunction. of the preliminary 18 reviewed In a trial reversing injunction, this 1100181 Court determined injunction had contention that preliminary that the follow because lack the party "presented i t would requesting no court's suffer Id. was no 65(d)(2), evidence o f an a court i f the Court held preliminary had f a i l e d t o irreparable injury o f an a d e q u a t e case, or remedy a t l a w . " I d . the present evidence issued there had been p r e s e n t e d the preliminary individually i s nothing injunction against named d e f e n d a n t s . considered relief. the merits James Court does, the August to indicate to the t r i a l court o f James's the Board and t h e however, i n the at which the t r i a l motion describe 3, 2 0 1 0 , h e a r i n g , seeking court injunctive i n her b r i e f before as f o l l o w s : " I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e C o u r t s e t a h e a r i n g on A u g u s t 3, 2 0 1 0 . N o n e o f t h e D e f e n d a n t s o r w i t n e s s e s on t h e i r b e h a l f a p p e a r e d . D e f e n d a n t s f i l e d m o t i o n s to c o n t i n u e t h e h e a r i n g . C o u n s e l f o r D e f e n d a n t s d i d appear. P l a i n t i f f appeared with s e v e r a l witnesses, some o f whom e x e c u t e d a f f i d a v i t s p r o p e r l y p e n d i n g before the Court prior to the hearing on t h e Defendants' Motion to A l t e r , Amend o r V a c a t e on 19 that before i t T h e r e i s no t r a n s c r i p t r e c o r d o f t h e A u g u s t 3, 2 0 1 0 , h e a r i n g this This i t s A l a . R. C i v . P., a n d In any injury issuing was i n e r r o r b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l "there supporting irreparable judgment the p r o v i s i o n s of Rule the preliminary evidence i n j u n c t i o n was n o t i s s u e d . " trial injunction that 1100181 September 22, 2010. A f t e r t h e c o u r t spoke w i t h a l l c o u n s e l and d e t e r m i n e d w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n t h a t t h e r e w o u l d b e no h a r m o r d a m a g e [ ] t o D e f e n d a n t s w i t h t h e entry of a [preliminary] injunction and t h e i r r e p a r a b l e h a r m t o t h e p l a i n t i f f was i m m i n e n t , t h e Court entered an o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e [ p r e l i m i n a r y ] i n j u n c t i o n . A t t h e same t i m e , t h e C o u r t i n s t r u c t e d counsel t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y on t h e m e r i t s w o u l d be h e l d on S e p t e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 1 0 . " James's she she brief, appeared a t pp. 34-35. with witnesses does not indicate, indicate, that any o f t h o s e James indicates that Although James at the August nor does the t r i a l 3, 2 0 1 0 , anything witnesses court indicates in only hearing, the testified. "spoke that record Instead, with a l l counsel." In 1983), Bamberg the Court v. Bamberg, of C i v i l 441 Appeals So. 2d held 970 (Ala. C i v . App. that "'[e]vidence that goes beyond the unverified a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e p l e a d i n g s and m o t i o n p a p e r s must be p r e s e n t e d t o s u p p o r t o r o p p o s e a m o t i o n f o r a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n . ' 11 C. W r i g h t & A. M i l l e r , Federal Practice and Procedure § 2949, a t 469 (1973). In other words, at a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n h e a r i n g an u n v e r i f i e d p l e a d i n g , w i t h o u t p r o o f o f i t s averments, i s i n s u f f i c i e n t i n and o f i t s e l f upon which t o base the issuance of a preliminary i n j u n c t i o n . ... W h i l e [ R ] u l e 65 o f t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e does n o t e x p l i c i t l y r e q u i r e t h a t oral testimony be presented at a preliminary injunction hearing, some t y p e o f e v i d e n c e which substantiates the pleadings i s implicitly required by subsection (a)(2) of that rule. ... At a preliminary injunction hearing, ... e v i d e n c e may 20 1100181 t a k e t h e f o r m o f a v e r i f i e d p l e a d i n g , an a f f i d a v i t , a d e p o s i t i o n , a s t i p u l a t i o n , an a d m i s s i o n , a w r i t t e n e x h i b i t and/or o r a l t e s t i m o n y ; however, unsworn, or unaffirmed, statements of parties or factual a s s e r t i o n s and a r g u m e n t s o f c o u n s e l w o u l d n o t meet muster." 441 a So. 2d at verified motion, and trial court 2010, affidavits Board motion at that "were first and and a from submitted 17, 2010, as attachments Rule to a t p. to the motion, and to the the 37. that [trial However, trial court o p p o s i t i o n to named d e f e n d a n t s ' 59(e) the states before her of submitted James hearing affidavits description was James's b r i e f , those the i n d i v i d u a l l y the evidence the submit preliminary-injunction Instead, at 2010." James d i d n o t J a m e s ' s own time. present case, verified h e a r i n g t h a t no on A u g u s t 3, September or i t i s apparent 3, James In the p r e s e n t complaint August court] 971. on the summary-judgment there is nothing to i n d i c a t e t h a t the t r i a l court ever considered those affidavits before preliminary injunction August i t entered the on 4, 2010. Although upon there the trial court i t s " c o n s i d e r a t i o n of i s nothing i n the indicated the r e c o r d to that evidence indicate and i t was relying submissions," t h a t any evidence h a d b e e n p r e s e n t e d when i t e n t e r e d t h e p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n . 21 1100181 Therefore, we any, that against the t r i a l injunction preliminary reverse against the t r i a l judgment the Board issued the against the complete lack preliminary trial judgment the preliminary injunction. "there o f an a d e q u a t e Allied Workers no supporting issuing evidence a v. Aliceville a n d we injunction based upon the issuance the of the (reversing the preliminary o f an remedy a t l a w " ) ; Union preliminary defendants i f injunction claims, See B a y o u C a b l e , s u p r a judgment was the named o f any e v i d e n c e court's because issuing individually i s s u i n g the to the extent, t h e B o a r d b a s e d on J a m e s ' s f e d e r a l - l a w reverse lack court court's injunction irreparable i n j u r y or I n t e r n a t i o n a l Molders Veneers & D i v . , Buchanan L u m b e r B i r m i n g h a m , 348 S o . 2 d 1 3 8 5 ( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) (no e v i d e n c e t o sustain the entry supra (reversing of a preliminary the trial preliminary i n j u n c t i o n based supportive i n j u n c t i o n ) ; and Bamberg, court's other issues Board and t h e i n d i v i d u a l l y arguments; and t h i s the "complete issuing however, issue named defendants our d i s p o s i t i o n pretermits 22 lack a evidence"). The upon judgment of any d i s c u s s i o n the o f any present immunity of the other 1100181 arguments raised by the Board and the individually named defendants. Conclusion B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , the entry the state-law claims i n s o f a r as t h e B o a r d i s a p p e a l i n g of the preliminary i n j u n c t i o n against filed b y J a m e s , we d i s m i s s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. the the preliminary judgment need to entering order the trial court i tbased upon the appeal f o r B e c a u s e we a r e r e v e r s i n g to i n j u n c t i o n , we vacate the s e e no preliminary injunction entered a g a i n s t t h e B o a r d i n s o f a r a s i t i s b a s e d on those also claims. We order that against the Board the Board members dismissed because i n their f o r lack of subject-matter there was we reverse issuance, preliminary not sufficient the t r i a l injunction state-law seeking and h e r c l a i m s against James's monetary official court's against the damages capacities jurisdiction. evidence claims be Further, to support i t s judgment entering the individually named d e f e n d a n t s a n d , i n s o f a r as t h e p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n a g a i n s t the Board the i s based upon James's Board. 23 federal-law claims, against 1100181 APPEAL DISMISSED INJUNCTION REVERSED; Malone, Main, I N PART; AND CAUSE C . J . , and Woodall, and Wise, J J . , concur. 24 JUDGMENT E N T E R I N G PRELIMINARY REMANDED. Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Shaw,
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.
