Case Title: Tarvin v. Dishman

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1101315

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2011-10-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL: 10/07/2011
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012
____________________
1101315
____________________
Ex parte Boaz City Board of Education et al.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re: Lisa Tarvin and Donnie Tarvin
v.
Leland Dishman et al.)
(Marshall Circuit Court, CV-11-900002)
STUART, Justice.
The Boaz City Board of Education ("the Board") and its
members Alan Perry, Fran Milwee, Roger Adams, Alan Davis, and
1101315
2
Tony G. King (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the
Board members") petition this Court for a writ of mandamus
directing the Marshall Circuit Court to vacate its order
denying their motion to dismiss the claims filed against them
by Lisa Tarvin and Donnie Tarvin and to enter an order
dismissing with prejudice the claims against them. We grant
the petition and issue the writ.
Factual Background and Procedural History
According to the complaint, on or about December 18,
2009, Leland Dishman, the superintendent for the Board, struck
Lisa Tarvin, a kindergarten teacher, with a paddle.  On or
about April 1, 2010, Dishman read a statement at a press
conference, denying that the incident occurred.  On January 5,
2011, Lisa Tarvin and Donnie Tarvin sued the Board, the Board
members in their official capacities, and Dishman in his
individual capacity, alleging claims of assault and/or
battery, defamation, libel, and slander and seeking monetary
damages.  The Board and the Board members moved to dismiss the
claims against them, arguing that they were immune from suit
under the doctrine of State immunity. On June 30, 2011, the
Marshall Circuit Court denied the motion.  The Board and the
1101315
3
Board members petition this Court for a writ of mandamus
directing the Marshall Circuit Court to vacate the June 30,
2011, order and to enter an order dismissing the claims
against them with prejudice.
Standard of Review
"'"It 
is 
well 
established 
that
mandamus will lie to compel a dismissal of
claim that is barred by the doctrine of
sovereign immunity."  Ex parte Blankenship,
893 So. 2d 303, 305 (Ala. 2004).
"'"A writ of mandamus is a
" ' " ' d r a s t i c  
a n d
extraordinary writ that
will 
be 
issued 
only
when there is: 1) a
clear legal right in
the petitioner to the
order 
sought; 
2) 
an
imperative 
duty 
upon
the 
respondent 
to
perform, accompanied by
a refusal to do so; 3)
the 
lack 
of 
another
adequate remedy; and 4)
p r o p e r l y  
i n v o k e d
jurisdiction 
of 
the
court.'"
"'Ex parte Wood, 852 So. 2d 705, 708 (Ala.
2002)(quoting 
Ex 
parte 
United 
Serv.
Stations, Inc., 628 So. 2d 501, 503 (Ala.
1993)).
"'....
1101315
4
"'"'[I]f an action is an action
against the State within the
meaning of § 14, such a case
"presents 
a 
question 
of
subject-matter 
jurisdiction,
which 
cannot 
be 
waived 
or
conferred by consent."'  Haley v.
Barbour County, 885 So. 2d 783,
788 (Ala. 2004)(quoting Patterson
v. Gladwin Corp., 835 So. 2d 137,
142–43 (Ala. 2002)).  'Therefore,
a court's failure to dismiss a
case for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction based on sovereign
immunity 
may 
properly 
be
addressed by a petition for the
writ of mandamus.'  Ex parte
Alabama Dep't of Mental Health &
Retardation, 837 So. 2d 808,
810–11 (Ala. 2002)."
"'Ex parte Davis, 930 So. 2d 497, 499–500
(Ala. 2005).'
"Ex parte Lawley, 38 So. 3d 41, 44–45 (Ala. 2009)."
Ex parte Phenix City Bd. of Educ., 67 So. 3d 56, ___ (Ala.
2011).
Discussion
The Board contends, and the Tarvins in their answer filed
in this Court do not dispute, that the Board enjoys immunity,
pursuant to Art. I, § 14, Ala. Const. 1901, from the tort
claims alleged against it.  See Ex parte Bessemer Bd. of
Educ., [Ms. 1041932, February 4, 2011] ___ So. 3d ___, ___
1101315
5
(Ala. 2011)("Local school boards are agencies of the State,
not of the local governmental units they serve, and they are
entitled to the same absolute immunity as other agencies of
the State."); Ex parte Phenix City Bd. of Educ., 67 So. 3d at
___ ("City boards of education are local agencies of the State
....); and Ex parte Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 48 So. 3d 621,
625 (Ala. 2010)("The [Monroe County Board of Education] is a
local agency of the State that has absolute immunity under
Ala. Const. of 1901, § 14.").  Accordingly, the claims against
the Board are barred by Art. I, § 14, Ala. Const. 1901.
The Board members contend, and the Tarvins in their
answer filed in this Court do not dispute, that the tort
claims alleged against the Board members in their official
capacities requesting money damages also are due to be
dismissed 
because 
the 
Board 
members 
enjoy 
the 
same
constitutional immunity as does the Board.  Ex parte Bessemer
Bd. of Educ., ___ So. 3d at ___ ("'Not only is the State
immune from suit under § 14, but "the State cannot be sued
indirectly by suing an officer in his or her official
capacity."'" (quoting Alabama Dep't of Transp. v. Harbert
Int'l, Inc., 990 So. 2d 831, 839 (Ala. 2008))); and Ex parte
1101315
6
Dangerfield, 49 So. 3d 675, 681 (Ala. 2010)(holding that all
claims against a state official in his or her official
capacity for damages are barred by the doctrine of immunity).
Accordingly, the claims against the Board members are barred
by Art. I, § 14, Ala. Const. 1901.
Conclusion
Because the Board and the Board members have demonstrated
that under Art. I, § 14, Ala. Const. 1901, they have immunity
from the claims asserted against them, they have established
a clear legal right to have the claims against them dismissed
with prejudice.  Therefore, we grant the petition and issue a
writ directing the Marshall Circuit Court to vacate its order
denying the motion to dismiss filed by the Board and the Board
members and to enter an order dismissing with prejudice the
claims asserted against the Board and the Board members.
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
Malone, C.J., and Parker, Shaw, and Wise, JJ., concur.