Wilson v. Thomas
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.
The Alabama Department of Corrections ("ADOC"), the Alabama Corrections Institution Finance Authority ("ACIFA"), and Kim Thomas, in his official capacities as the commissioner of ADOC and as ex officio vice president of ACIFA, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Montgomery Circuit Court to vacate its May 2012 order denying their motion seeking a partial summary judgment and requested the court enter a new order granting their motion. In 2010, Albert Wilson, Rufus Barnes, Joseph Danzey, Bryan Gavins, and Donald Simmons, all of whom were employed by ADOC as correctional officers, sued ADOC and its then commissioner Richard Allen alleging that ADOC was violating its own regulations and state law in the manner in which it: (1) compensated correctional officers for overtime; (2) restricted the way correctional officers were allowed to use earned leave; and (3) paid correctional officers the daily subsistence allowance provided by law. The plaintiffs also sought class certification on behalf of all other similarly situated correctional officers employed by ADOC and requested injunctive relief, as well as money damages, to include backpay with interest, punitive damages, and litigation costs and expenses, including attorney fees. Because ADOC and Thomas, in his official capacity as commissioner of ADOC, were entitled to State immunity on those claims, the Court granted the petition as to ADOC and Thomas, in his capacity as commissioner of ADOC, and issued the writ. However, ACIFA and Thomas, in his official capacity as vice president of ACIFA, did not argue that they were entitled to State immunity on the claims asserted against them; rather, they argued that those claims lacked merit. That argument presented an insufficient basis upon which to issue a writ of mandamus, and the Supreme Court therefore denied the petition with regard to the those claims because ACIFA and Thomas had an adequate remedy on appeal.
Download PDF
REL: 10/26/2012 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 Reporter of Decisions, 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 1111294 Ex p a r t e Kim Thomas e t a l . PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : A l b e r t Wilson e t a l . v. Kim Thomas e t a l . ) (Montgomery C i r c u i t Court, STUART, Justice. The Alabama CV-11-1233) Department of Corrections Alabama C o r r e c t i o n s I n s t i t u t i o n F i n a n c e ("ADOC"), t h e Authority ("ACIFA"), 1111294 and K i m Thomas, i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s a s t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r o f ADOC a n d as e x o f f i c i o v i c e this Court f o ra writ president o f ACIFA, p e t i t i o n o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t t o v a c a t e i t s May 17, 2012, o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e i r motion s e e k i n g a p a r t i a l order granting summary j u d g m e n t a n d t o e n t e r a new the motion. We grant the p e t i t i o n r e l a t e s t o ADOC a n d Thomas i n h i s c a p a c i t y as as commissioner and d e n y i t as i t r e l a t e s t o A C I F A a n d Thomas i n h i s c a p a c i t y vice i t as president. I. On A u g u s t Danzey, Bryan employed by 17, 2 0 1 0 , A l b e r t Gavins, ADOC W i l s o n , Rufus Barnes, and Donald as Simmons, a l l o f whom a r e correctional officers (hereinafter r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as " t h e c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s " ) , ADOC a n d i t s t h e n c o m m i s s i o n e r Richard Allen Circuit ADOC Court, regulations alleging and s t a t e that Joseph i n the Barbour was v i o l a t i n g l a w i n t h e manner sued i n which i t s own i t : (1) c o m p e n s a t e d c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s f o r o v e r t i m e ; (2) r e s t r i c t e d the way c o r r e c t i o n a l leave; and subsistence (3) paid officers were a l l o w e d t o use earned correctional a l l o w a n c e p r o v i d e d by law. 2 officers the The p l a i n t i f f s daily also 1111294 sought c l a s s certification situated correctional injunctive relief, on b e h a l f as w e l l expenses, i n c l u d i n g On September a s money attorney officers ruled filed I , § 14, on t h a t an Ala. court entered moved t h e t r i a l were e n t i t l e d C o n s t . 1901. complaint adding claims against A l l e n as v i c e p r e s i d e n t o f A C I F A as w e l l . trial an costs t o State Before the m o t i o n , however, t h e c o r r e c t i o n a l amended defendant and a s s e r t i n g include o f f i c e r s ' c l a i m s f o r money ADOC a n d A l l e n immunity under A r t i c l e to fees. 22, 2 0 1 0 , ADOC a n d A l l e n damages, a r g u i n g t h a t court damages, damages, a n d l i t i g a t i o n court t o dismiss the correctional trial similarly o f f i c e r s e m p l o y e d b y ADOC a n d r e q u e s t e d backpay w i t h i n t e r e s t , p u n i t i v e and of a l l other order S e p t e m b e r 22 m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , ACIFA i nhis On December 21, denying ADOC as a capacity 2010, t h e and Allen's without s t a t i n g i t s rationale. T h e r e a f t e r , ADOC, A C I F A , a n d A l l e n f i l e d an a n s w e r t o t h e correctional o f f i c e r s ' amended c o m p l a i n t . On M a r c h 3, ADOC, A C I F A , a n d Thomas, who s u c c e e d e d A l l e n of ADOC a n d v i c e president o f ACIFA 2011, as c o m m i s s i o n e r on J a n u a r y 17, 2 0 1 1 , 1 ^ P u r s u a n t t o R u l e 2 5 ( d ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., Thomas was automatically s u b s t i t u t e d as a d e f e n d a n t i n p l a c e o f A l l e n when he s u c c e e d e d A l l e n as c o m m i s s i o n e r o f ADOC on J a n u a r y 17, 2011. 3 1111294 moved t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o t r a n s f e r t h e a c t i o n t o t h e Montgomery Circuit Court provides pursuant t o § 6-3-9, t h a t " i f , on t h e t r i a l A l a . Code 1975, which o f any case i n any county, i t i s suggested by the Board o f Corrections or i s otherwise t h a t t h e s t a t e i s i n t e r e s t e d on a c c o u n t o f t h e p r i s o n such case must be transferred to the proper Montgomery C o u n t y . " See a l s o Ex p a r t e 251, (holding that the State its § 258 ( A l a . 2006) Daniels, shown system, court of 941 So. 2d does n o t w a i v e r i g h t t o t r a n s f e r a c a s e t o Montgomery C o u n t y p u r s u a n t t o 6-3-9 e v e n i f venue i s not challenged within t h e time p r e s c r i b e d b y R u l e 1 2 ( h ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P . ) . On o r a b o u t May 24, 2 0 1 1 , t h e B a r b o u r Circuit Court granted the motion, and t h e c a s e was t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t The t r i a l for court t h e r e a f t e r approved the action, Thomas moved judgment a n d , on A p r i l the t r i a l i n their court favor, o f f i c e r s ' claims seeking h a d no f a c t u a l officers filed certification 17, 2012, ADOC, A C I F A , a n d t o enter arguing that a partial or l e g a l a response, arguing 4 and t h a t t h e c l a i m s basis. summary the c o r r e c t i o n a l money damages f r o m ADOC were by t h e d o c t r i n e o f S t a t e i m m u n i t y ACIFA class Court. barred against The c o r r e c t i o n a l t h a t t h e summary-judgment 1111294 m o t i o n was w i t h o u t m e r i t a n d t h a t , i n any e v e n t , the Barbour C i r c u i t Court had a l r e a d y r e j e c t e d the State-immunity before Court. the case was argument t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e Montgomery On May 17, 2012, t h e t r i a l Circuit court conducted a hearing on t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n a n d , l a t e r t h a t d a y , e n t e r e d an order denying ACIFA, the motion without s t a t i n g i t s r a t i o n a l e . a n d Thomas now petition this Court f o r a writ 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 v a c a t e i t s o r d e r their ADOC, summary-judgment m o t i o n a n d t o e n t e r an o r d e r of denying granting t h e same. II. "Mandamus i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t a n d w i l l be i s s u e d ' " 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 in the p e t i t i o n e r t o the order sought, (2) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d b y 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 remedy, a n d (4) 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 . " ' Ex p a r t e L a n d , 775 So. 2d 847, 850 ( A l a . 2000) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e H o r t o n , 711 So. 2d 979, 983 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) ) . When we c o n s i d e r a mandamus p e t i t i o n , t h e s c o p e o f o u r r e v i e w i s t o determine whether the t r i a l court c l e a r l y exceeded its discretion. Ex p a r t e T e g n e r , 682 So. 2d 396 (Ala. 1996)." S t a t e v. B u i , 888 So. 2d 1227, 1229 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) . note this denial Court's general rule t h a t we w i l l We f u r t h e r not review the o f a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t on a p e t i t i o n f o r 5 1111294 t h e w r i t o f mandamus b e c a u s e an a d e q u a t e remedy e x i s t s b y way o f an a p p e a l . 76 Ex p a r t e P a r Pharm., I n c . , 58 So. 3d 767, 775¬ ( A l a . 2010). However, an e x c e p t i o n t o t h a t g e n e r a l r u l e 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 j u d g m e n t g r o u n d e d on a c l a i m o f immunity mandamus." i s reviewable Ex p a r t e R i z k , by p e t i t i o n f o rwrit of 791 So. 2d 9 1 1 , 912 ( A l a . 2000) ( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e P u r v i s , 689 So. 2 d 794 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ) . In the i n s t a n t c a s e , ADOC a n d Thomas moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t on t h e c l a i m s f o r money damages a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t ADOC a n d Thomas in h i s c a p a c i t y as c o m m i s s i o n e r grounds; thus, review o f ADOC of the t r i a l on State-immunity court's d e n i a l of t h e i r m o t i o n s e e k i n g a summary j u d g m e n t on t h o s e c l a i m s i s a v a i l a b l e by a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. However, A C I F A a n d Thomas have n o t a r g u e d t h a t t h e y a r e entitled t o State immunity on t h e c l a i m s asserted against A C I F A a n d a g a i n s t Thomas i n h i s c a p a c i t y as v i c e p r e s i d e n t o f A C I F A ; r a t h e r , t h e y a r g u e t h a t t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d t o a summary judgment because " t h e y have no c o n n e c t i o n whatsoever t o the [ c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s ' ] c l a i m s " b e c a u s e A C I F A h a s no r o l e i n personnel or p a y r o l l matters a f f e c t i n g ADOC e m p l o y e e s . They a s s e r t t h a t ACIFA e x i s t s s o l e l y t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e f i n a n c e and 6 1111294 acquisition and they of land, argue that institutions, and f a c i l i t i e s t h e l a c k o f any c o n n e c t i o n correctional officers' those between the n o n j u s t i c i a b l e ; t h e r e f o r e , review claims claims and A C I F A e f f e c t i v e l y c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f t h e i r summary-judgment for f o r ADOC, renders of the trial m o t i o n on a p e t i t i o n t h e w r i t o f mandamus i s a v a i l a b l e b e c a u s e , t h e y a r g u e , t h e issue of s u b j e c t - m a t t e r University Ass'n, of South 809 So. 3d jurisdiction Alabama 735, Med. has b e e n C t r . v. 740-41 raised. Mobile ( A l a . 2011) Infirmary (stating j u s t i c i a b i l i t y i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l ) , and Ex p a r t e F l i n t Co., 775 So. 2d 805 subject-matter ( A l a . 2000) See that Constr. (holding that the question of j u r i s d i c t i o n i s reviewable by a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus). We disagree, been r a i s e d . to identify however, that a justiciability has " ' C o n c e p t s o f j u s t i c i a b i l i t y have b e e n d e v e l o p e d appropriate occasions for judicial The c e n t r a l c o n c e p t s o f t e n a r e e l a b o r a t e d categories of j u s t i c i a b i l i t y collusive cases, questions, and Dictionary issue 943-44 standing, i n t o more specific a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n s , f e i g n e d and ripeness, administrative (9th ed. action 2009) 7 mootness, political questions.'" Black's Law (quoting Charles Alan 13 1111294 W r i g h t e t a l . , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e & P r o c e d u r e § 3529, a t 278-79 (2d ed. 1984)). I n d e e d , t h i s C o u r t h a s r e c o g n i z e d t h e above- c i t e d s p e c i f i c categories of j u s t i c i a b i l i t y i nprevious cases. See, at e . g . , U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h A l a b a m a Med. C t r . , 809 So. 3d 741-42 (dismissing appeal where there was no actual c o n t r o v e r s y b e t w e e n p a r t i e s whose l e g a l i n t e r e s t s were a d v e r s e and where a p p e a l s o u g h t m e r e l y an a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n ) ; Ozark City ("'Chief S c h . Bd. o f E d u c . , among justiciability] these Fenn v. 9 So. 3d 484, 486 ( A l a . 2008) elements [composing i s the requirement that the concept a plaintiff " s t a n d i n g t o i n v o k e t h e power o f t h e c o u r t i n h i s b e h a l f . " p a r t e I z u n d u , 568 So. 2d 771, 772 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) . ' " of have Ex ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e S t a t e ex r e l . James, 711 So. 2d 952, 960 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) ) ) ; Ex p a r t e R i l e y , 11 So. 3d 801, 806 ( A l a . 2008) ("Alabama c a s e s often address justiciable, r i p e n e s s i n t h e c o n t e x t of whether or appropriate f o r j u d i c i a l E l m o r e v . Town o f C o o s a d a , a case i s review."); Town o f 957 So. 2d 1096, 1100 ( A l a . 2006) ("Because m o o t n e s s goes t o j u s t i c i a b i l i t y , t h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t consider the merits of a claim that i s moot."); B i r m i n g h a m - J e f f e r s o n C i v i c C t r . A u t h . v. C i t y o f 912 So. 2d 204, 221 ( A l a . 2005) 8 (declining and Birmingham, to consider 1111294 "nonjusticiable political legislature's voting In t h i s arguing question" involving the procedures). c a s e , h o w e v e r , A C I F A and Thomas a r e e s s e n t i a l l y that the c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s ' have no b a s i s b e c a u s e , t h e y claims against ACIFA c l a i m , A C I F A has n o t h i n g t o do w i t h t h e manner i n w h i c h c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s a r e c o m p e n s a t e d or t h e funds w i t h w h i c h t h e y a r e compensated. This goes t o t h e m e r i t s o f t h e c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s ' argument c l a i m s , and, r e g a r d l e s s o f w h a t e v e r m e r i t t h e argument m i g h t h a v e , i t does not r a i s e a j u s t i c i a b i l i t y i s s u e . The t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f t h e m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t as t o A C I F A a n d Thomas i n his capacity as v i c e p r e s i d e n t s u b j e c t t o mandamus r e v i e w . Chiropractic 2007) Exam'rs, plaintiffs' i s accordingly 11 So. 3d 221, 226-27 ( A l a . C i v . App. argument t h a t them they t o a w r i t o f mandamus on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e c l a i m s h a d no m e r i t ) . Thus, we r e v i e w o n l y ADOC Thomas's argument t h a t t h e c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s ' against not See Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a S t a t e Bd. o f ( d e c l i n i n g t o address p e t i t i o n e r s ' were e n t i t l e d and o f ACIFA f o r money damages a r e b a r r e d State immunity. 9 claims by p r i n c i p l e s of 1111294 III. We e x p l a i n e d t h e d o c t r i n e o f S t a t e i m m u n i t y a s i t a p p l i e s to S t a t e a g e n c i e s and S t a t e o f f i c i a l s , the commissioner County, o f ADOC, as f o l l o w s including specifically i n Haley v. Barbour 885 So. 2d 783, 788 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) : " S e c t i o n 14, A l a . C o n s t . 1 9 0 1 , 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 be made a d e f e n d a n t i n any c o u r t o f law o r e q u i t y . ' This s e c t i o n a f f o r d s t h e S t a t e a n d i t s a g e n c i e s an ' a b s o l u t e ' i m m u n i t y f r o m 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 Dep't o f Human R e s . , 815 So. 2d 527, 530 ( A l a . 2001) ( s t a t i n g t h a t A l a . C o n s t . 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 a n d i t s a g e n c i e s a b s o l u t e i m m u n i t y f r o m s u i t i n a n y 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 , 796 So. 2d 1100, 1103 ( A l a . 2000) ('Under A l a . C o n s t . o f 1 9 0 1 , § 14, t h e S t a t e 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 i m m u n i t y e x t e n d s t o arms o r a g e n c i e s o f t h e state ' ) . I n d e e d , t h i s C o u r t h a s d e s c r i b e d § 14 as an ' a l m o s t i n v i n c i b l e ' 'wall' o f immunity. A l a b a m a S t a t e Docks v. Saxon, 631 So. 2d 943, 946 ( A l a . 1994) . This ' w a l l o f immunity' i s ' n e a r l y i m p r e g n a b l e , ' P a t t e r s o n v. G l a d w i n C o r p . , 835 So. 2d 137, 142 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) , and b a r s 'almost every conceivable type of s u i t . ' H u t c h i n s o n 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 . 20, 23, 256 So. 2d 2 8 1 , 283 ( 1 9 7 1 ) . M o r e o v e r , i f an a c t i o n i s an a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f § 14, such a case 'presents a q u e s t i o n o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n , w h i c h c a n n o t be w a i v e d o r c o n f e r r e d b y consent.' P a t t e r s o n , 835 So. 2d a t 142-43. " S e c t i o n 14 p r o h i b i t s a c t i o n s a g a i n s t s t a t e o f f i c e r s i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s when t h o s e actions are, i n effect, actions against the State. L y o n s v. R i v e r Road C o n s t r . , I n c . , 858 So. 2d 257, 261 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ; M i t c h e l l v . D a v i s , 598 So. 2d 8 0 1 , 10 1111294 806 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . ' I n d e t e r m i n i n g 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 o r e m p l o y e e i s , i n f a c t , one a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e , [a] [ c ] o u r t w i l l c o n s i d e r s u c h f a c t o r s as t h e n a t u r e o f t h e a c t i o n and t h e r e l i e f sought.' P h i l l i p s v. Thomas, 555 So. 2d 81, 83 ( A l a . 1989) . Such f a c t o r s i n c l u d e w h e t h e r 'a r e s u l t f a v o r a b l e t o 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 , ' M i t c h e l l , 598 So. 2d a t 806, w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t i s s i m p l y 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. 2d 770, 784 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) , and w h e t h e r 'a judgment a g a i n s t the 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, 858 So. 2d a t 261. M o r e o v e r , we n o t e t h a t c l a i m s against state o f f i c e r s i n their o f f i c i a l capacity are ' f u n c t i o n a l l y e q u i v a l e n t ' t o claims a g a i n s t the e n t i t y they represent. H i n s o n v. H o l t , 776 So. 2d 804, 810 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) ; see a l s o M c M i l l i a n v. Monroe C o u n t y , A l a . , 520 U.S. 781, 785 n. 2, 117 S.Ct. 1734, 138 L.Ed.2d 1 (1997) ( n o t i n g t h a t a s u i t against a governmental officer in his official c a p a c i t y i s t h e same as a s u i t a g a i n s t t h e e n t i t y o f w h i c h t h e o f f i c e r i s an a g e n t ) ; Y e l d e l l v. C o o p e r G r e e n Hosp., I n c . , 956 F.2d 1056, 1060 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1992) (holding that official-capacity suits g e n e r a l l y r e p r e s e n t o n l y a n o t h e r way o f p l e a d i n g an a c t i o n a g a i n s t an e n t i t y o f w h i c h an o f f i c e r i s an agent). In t h i s case, the commissioner represents [A]DOC, w h i c h , as a d e p a r t m e n t o f t h e S t a t e , i s e n t i t l e d t o s o v e r e i g n immunity. R o d g e r s v. Hopper, 768 So. 2d 963, 968 ( A l a . 2000) ( h o l d i n g t h a t [A]DOC is entitled to sovereign immunity under § 14, b e c a u s e a j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t i t w o u l d be p a i d f r o m t h e t r e a s u r y of the S t a t e ) . " Thus, ADOC and Thomas, ADOC, a r e g e n e r a l l y immunity p r o v i d e d i n his capacity entitled by § 14. to r e l y Moreover, 11 as commissioner on t h e s h i e l d t h i s C o u r t has of of State further 1111294 h e l d t h a t c l a i m s a g a i n s t ADOC s e e k i n g i n c l u d i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y backpay c o m p e n s a t o r y damages are barred b y § 14: "In general, t h e S t a t e i s immune f r o m any l a w s u i t t h a t would d i r e c t l y a f f e c t a c o n t r a c t o r property right of the State or 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 . See [Alabama A g r i c . & Mech. U n i v . v.] J o n e s , 895 So. 2d [867,] 873 [ ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) ] . A c l a i m f o r backpay i s a c l a i m f o r c o m p e n s a t o r y damages. 895 So. 2 d a t 875-76 (holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars c l a i m s f o r r e t r o s p e c t i v e r e l i e f and b a c k p a y a g a i n s t a s t a t e u n i v e r s i t y b a s e d on a b r e a c h o f an employment c o n t r a c t ) ; Vaughan v . S i b l e y , 709 So. 2d 482, 486 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997) . The d o c t r i n e o f s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i t y t h u s b a r s an a c t i o n s e e k i n g b a c k p a y . J o n e s , 895 So. 2d a t 876; Vaughan , 709 So. 2d a t 486. T h e r e f o r e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t d i s m i s s i n g [ t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s ] c l a i m s f o r b a c k wages a n d c o m p e n s a t o r y damages, w h i c h a r e b a r r e d b y A r t . I , § 14, o f t h e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901." Latham v. Department of Corr., 927 So. 2d 815, 821 ( A l a . 2005). Nevertheless, of citing Transportation, correctional entitled actions officers t o State have fraudulent, 937 So. 2d argue immunity been in Drummond Co. v . A l a b a m a that ADOC because, and continue bad 56, 58 faith, 2006), t h e a n d Thomas they argue, t o be w i l l f u l , and 12 (Ala. Department based on arenot Thomas's malicious, a mistaken 1111294 interpretation Drummond of the law. that "'actions against State o f f i c i a l s This 2 Court d i d recognize i n f o r i n j u n c t i o n o r damages b r o u g h t i ntheir individually where i t was fraudulently, i n bad f a i t h , r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c a p a c i t y and alleged that beyond t h e i r mistaken i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f law'" they 65, 68 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) ) . T r a n s p o r t a t i o n v. H a r b e r t 840 (Ala. State 2008), immunity Harbert we a r e n o t p r o h i b i t e d b y § 14. However, C a r t e r , 395 So. i n Alabama Department o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l , I n c . , 990 So. 2d 8 3 1 , further explained discussed acted authority or i n a Drummond, 937 So. 2d a t 58 ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e 2d had the "exceptions" to i n Drummond, and our h o l d i n g i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l makes c l e a r t h a t the "exception" the c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s now s e e k t o r e l y upon i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e in this case: "These a c t i o n s [against the State that are not b a r r e d b y § 14 a n d t h a t a r e d i s c u s s e d i n Drummond] The c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s a l s o r e p e a t e d l y e m p h a s i z e t h a t , i n December 2010, t h e B a r b o u r C i r c u i t C o u r t d e n i e d an i n i t i a l m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h i s c a s e b a s e d on S t a t e - i m m u n i t y g r o u n d s and t h a t ADOC a n d Thomas f a i l e d t o f i l e a p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus a t t h a t t i m e ; h o w e v e r , t o t h e e x t e n t t h e y a r e a r g u i n g t h a t ADOC a n d Thomas w a i v e d t h e i r r i g h t t o c l a i m S t a t e i m m u n i t y b a s e d on t h a t f a i l u r e , t h e i r argument i s w i t h o u t m e r i t . An a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f § 14 "presents a question of subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n , which c a n n o t be w a i v e d 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 137, 142-43 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . 2 13 1111294 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; however, i n a c t u a l i t y these a c t i o n s a r e s i m p l y n o t c o n s i d e r e d t o be a c t i o n s ' " 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. 2d 137, 142 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . This Court 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 , ' n o t i n g 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 when a f a v o r a b l e r e s u l t f o r t h e plaintiff would d i r e c t l y affect a contract or p r o p e r t y r i g h t o f t h e S t a t e , o r 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 867, 873 ( A l a . 2004) ( q u o t i n g S h o a l s Cmty. C o l l . v . C o l a g r o s s , 674 So. 2d 1311, 1314 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995)) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d i n J o n e s ) . " In t h i s case, t h e c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s d o s e e k money damages f r o m t h e S t a t e ; t h u s , t h e r e l i e d - u p o n " e x c e p t i o n " i n Drummond does n o t a p p l y , a n d t h e i r c l a i m s a g a i n s t Thomas a r e b a r r e d b y § 14. M o r e o v e r , we n o t e t h a t ADOC w o u l d s t i l l State immunity even i f the correctional Thomas were permitted against be e n t i t l e d t o officers' b y Drummond because claims "these 'exceptions' t o [State] immunity apply o n l y t o a c t i o n s brought a g a i n s t S t a t e o f f i c i a l s ; t h e y do n o t a p p l y t o a c t i o n s the State o r a g a i n s t State agencies." o f F i n . , 991 So. 2d 1254, against Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Dep't 1257 ( A l a . 2008) . Thus, ADOC a n d Thomas, i n h i s c a p a c i t y as c o m m i s s i o n e r o f ADOC, a r e e n t i t l e d to State immunity, and t h e t r i a l 14 court accordingly erred i n 1111294 failing t o grant t h e i r motion f o r a summary j u d g m e n t on t h e c l a i m s a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t them s e e k i n g money damages. 3 IV. ADOC, A C I F A , a n d Thomas p e t i t i o n e d t h i s C o u r t f o r a w r i t of mandamus d i r e c t i n g denying their motion correctional officers' the t r i a l seeking claims an o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e m o t i o n . official State capacity court a summary its judgment order on t h e f o r money damages a n d t o e n t e r B e c a u s e ADOC a n d Thomas, i n h i s as c o m m i s s i o n e r i m m u n i t y on t h o s e t o vacate o f ADOC, a r e e n t i t l e d t o c l a i m s , we g r a n t the p e t i t i o n as t o ADOC a n d Thomas, i n h i s c a p a c i t y as c o m m i s s i o n e r o f ADOC, a n d issue the writ. However, A C I F A a n d Thomas, i n h i s official c a p a c i t y as v i c e p r e s i d e n t o f A C I F A , have n o t a r g u e d t h a t a r e e n t i t l e d t o S t a t e i m m u n i t y on t h e c l a i m s a s s e r t e d they against I n t h e i r r e s p o n s e t o ADOC, A C I F A , a n d Thomas's p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus, t h e c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s a l s o d e v o t e s e v e r a l pages t o a r g u i n g t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r s a r e n o t e n t i t l e d t o State-agent immunity and t h a t ACIFA i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o S t a t e i m m u n i t y . However, none o f t h e p e t i t i o n e r s have a s s e r t e d S t a t e - a g e n t i m m u n i t y , a n d a d i s c u s s i o n o f Ex p a r t e Cranman, 792 So. 2d 392 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , i n w h i c h t h i s C o u r t r e s t a t e d the d o c t r i n e o f S t a t e - a g e n t immunity, and i t s progeny i s therefore not necessary. L i k e w i s e , ACIFA has n o t argued t h a t i t i s e n t i t l e d t o State immunity, conceding t h a t t h i s C o u r t a l r e a d y d e c i d e d t h a t i s s u e i n R o d g e r s v . H o p p e r , 768 So. 2d 963, 967 ( A l a . 2000) ("[W]e c o n c l u d e t h a t A C I F A a n d , derivatively, i t sofficials are not e n t i t l e d t o [State] immunity."). 3 15 1111294 them; r a t h e r , t h e y a r g u e s i m p l y t h a t t h o s e That argument p r e s e n t s claims lack merit. an i n s u f f i c i e n t b a s i s upon w h i c h t o i s s u e a w r i t o f mandamus, a n d we t h e r e f o r e deny t h e p e t i t i o n w i t h regard t o the those c l a i m s b e c a u s e A C I F A a n d Thomas have an a d e q u a t e remedy on a p p e a l . PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; WRIT ISSUED. Woodall, Bolin, P a r k e r , Main, and Wise, J J . , concur. M u r d o c k a n d Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r Malone, C.J., recuses himself. 16 specially. 1111294 SHAW, J u s t i c e I (concurring concur specially). i n the holding Alabama C o r r e c t i o n s i n t h e main Institution opinion Finance A u t h o r i t y and K i m Thomas, i n h i s c a p a c i t y as ex o f f i c i o of ACIFA, are not e n t i t l e d that the t o mandamus agree t h a t t h e Alabama Department ("ACIFA") vice relief. of Corrections president I further ("ADOC") a n d Thomas, i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y as t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r o f ADOC, are b o t h c l e a r l y e n t i t l e d t o S t a t e immunity under A l a . Const. 1901, § 14, as e x p l a i n e d i n H a l e y v. Barbour County, 2d 783 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) , a n d L a t h a m v . D e p a r t m e n t 927 885 So. of Corrections, So. 2d 815 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) . This Court's Department decision of Transportation, in Drummond Co. a r e sometimes immunity. One such Alabama 937 So. 2d 56 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) , n o t e s s e v e r a l types of actions that are not barred actions v. b y § 14; t h e s e r e f e r r e d t o as " e x c e p t i o n s " "exception" involves t o § 14 "'actions for 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 S t a t e o f f i c i a l s i n t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c a p a c i t y a n d i n d i v i d u a l l y where i t was a l l e g e d t h a t they had acted f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad f a i t h , beyond a u t h o r i t y or i n a mistaken i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of law.'" 937 So. 2d a t 58 ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e 17 Carter, their Drummond, 395 So. 2d 65, 68 1111294 (Ala. 1980)). This officers as continue against However, t h i s support i s c i t e d by t h e c o r r e c t i o n a l f o r allowing ADOC and "exception," Thomas, as a S t a t e agency. "exception" the instant Thomas, on i t s f a c e , w o u l d a p p l y official, named i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y - - a n d discussed Harbert, i n proceedings i n Drummond). Int'l, not State falling Moreover, the s o - c a l l e d "exceptions" a c t u a l l y exceptions only t o a n d n o t ADOC, w h i c h i s a S t a t e Inc., 841 ( A l a . 2008) ( h o l d i n g " t h a t o n l y S t a t e defendants" to i t s commissioner. A l a b a m a Dep't o f T r a n s p . v . H a r b e r t So. 2 d 831, be as action officers agencies--may under t h e " e x c e p t i o n s " as t h i s Court noted i n t o § 14 i m m u n i t y a r e n o t and a r e nonetheless limited: "These a c t i o n s [ d i s c u s s e d i n Drummond] a r e s o m e t i m e s r e f e r r e d t o a s ' 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 a c t i o n s are simply not considered t o be a c t i o n s ' " 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. 2d 137, 142 (Ala. 2002). This Court has q u a l i f i e d those 'exceptions,' noting that ' " [ 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 when a f a v o r a b l e r e s u l t f o r t h e plaintiff would d i r e c t l y affect a contract or p r o p e r t y r i g h t o f the State, or would r e s u l t i n the plaintiff'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 867, 873 ( A l a . 2004) ( q u o t i n g S h o a l s Cmty. C o l l . v . C o l a g r o s s , 674 So. 2d 1 3 1 1 , 1314 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995)) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d i n J o n e s ) . " 18 990 1111294 Harbert, 990 So. 2d a t 840. case seek r e c o v e r y The c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s i n t h i s o f money f r o m t h e S t a t e . Drummond " e x c e p t i o n " Therefore, the c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s the c i t e does n o t a p p l y i n t h e a c t i o n a g a i n s t Thomas i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y as the c o m m i s s i o n e r o f ADOC. I note that, although the "exception" correctional officers ... damages" may certain limited be p u r s u e d , actions individually officials seek t o a p p l y because 835 thus, states that "actions f o r such "actions" "against State actions refer to only officials f o r damages ... against i n t h e i r "representative" or o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s are a c t u a l l y actions seeking are, i n Drummond t h e barred. to recover Burgoon So. 2d 131, 133 money f r o m t h e S t a t e a n d v. A l a b a m a D e p ' t o f Human R e s . , ( A l a . 2002) ("A suit against a State agency, o r a g a i n s t S t a t e agents 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 , is a suit against State o f f i c i a l s the S t a t e . " ) . i n their Even t h o s e a c t i o n s against i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s , h o w e v e r , may s t i l l be b a r r e d b y § 14, P h i l l i p s v. Thomas, 555 So. 2d 81, 83 (Ala. 1989) ("State officers and employees, in [ i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s , ] ... a r e a b s o l u t e l y immune f r o m their suit when t h e a c t i o n i s , i n e f f e c t , one a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e . " ) , o r b y 19 1111294 State-agent (Ala. i m m u n i t y u n d e r Ex p a r t e Cranman, 2000). Murdock, J . , c o n c u r s . 20 792 So. 2d 392
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.
