Case Title: Wilson v. Thomas

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1111294

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2012-10-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
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 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 Reporter. 
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, 
Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 
((334) 229¬
0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
any 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 be 
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 Reporter. 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 
1111294 
Ex parte Kim Thomas et a l . 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
(In re: 
A l b e r t Wilson et a l . 
v. 
Kim Thomas et a l . ) 
(Montgomery C i r c u i t Court, CV-11-1233) 
STUART, J u s t i c e . 
The 
Alabama 
Department o f C o r r e c t i o n s 
("ADOC"), t h e 
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 A u t h o r i t y ("ACIFA"), 
1111294 
and Kim 
Thomas, i n 
h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s as 
t h e commissioner 
of ADOC and 
as ex o f f i c i o v i c e p r e s i d e n t of ACIFA, p e t i t i o n 
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 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 
m o t i o n s e e k i n g a p a r t i a l summary judgment and 
t o e n t e r a new 
o r d e r 
g r a n t i n g 
t h e m o t i o n . 
We g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n as i t 
r e l a t e s t o 
ADOC and 
Thomas i n 
h i s 
c a p a c i t y as commissioner and 
deny i t 
as i t 
r e l a t e s t o 
ACIFA and 
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 . 
I . 
On August 17, 
2010, A l b e r t W i l s o n , Rufus B a r n e s , Joseph 
Danzey, B r y a n G a v i n s , and Donald Simmons, a l l 
o f whom a r e 
employed by ADOC as 
c o r r e c t i o n a l 
o f f i c e r s 
( h e r e i n a f t e r 
r e f e r r e d t o 
c o l l e c t i v e l y 
as 
"the 
c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s " ) , sued 
ADOC and i t s then commissioner R i c h a r d A l l e n i n 
t h e B a r b o u r 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t , 
a l l e g i n g 
t h a t ADOC was v i o l a t i n g i t s 
own 
r e g u l a t i o n s 
and s t a t e law i n t h e manner i n w h i c h 
i t : 
(1) 
compensated 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 
o f f i c e r s were a l l o w e d t o use e a r n e d 
l e a v e ; 
and (3) 
p a i d 
c o r r e c t i o n a l 
o f f i c e r s 
t h e 
d a i l y 
s u b s i s t e n c e a l l o w a n c e p r o v i d e d by law. The p l a i n t i f f s 
a l s o 
2 
1111294 
sought c l a s s 
c e r t i f i c a t i o n on b e h a l f of a l l o t h e r 
s i m i l a r l y 
s i t u a t e d c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s employed by 
ADOC and r e q u e s t e d 
i n j u n c t i v e 
r e l i e f , 
as w e l l as money damages, t o 
i n c l u d e 
backpay w i t h i n t e r e s t , p u n i t i v e damages, and l i t i g a t i o n c o s t s 
and expenses, i n c l u d i n g a t t o r n e y 
f e e s . 
On 
September 22, 2010, 
ADOC and A l l e n moved t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t t o 
d i s m i s s t h e 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 f o r money 
damages, a r g u i n g t h a t ADOC and A l l e n were e n t i t l e d t o S t a t e 
immunity under A r t i c l e I , 
§ 14, A l a . Const. 1901. 
B e f o r e 
t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t r u l e d on t h a t m o t i o n , however, t h e c o r r e c t i o n a l 
o f f i c e r s 
f i l e d 
an amended 
c o m p l a i n t 
a d d i n g 
ACIFA as a 
d e f e n d a n t and a s s e r t i n g c l a i m s a g a i n s t A l l e n 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 
ACIFA as w e l l . On December 21, 2010, t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
e n t e r e d an o r d e r 
d e n y i n g ADOC and 
A l l e n ' s 
September 22 m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , w i t h o u t s t a t i n g i t s r a t i o n a l e . 
T h e r e a f t e r , ADOC, ACIFA, and 
A l l e n f i l e d an answer t o t h e 
c o r r e c t i o n a l 
o f f i c e r s ' amended c o m p l a i n t . 
On March 3, 2011, 
ADOC, ACIFA, and 
Thomas, who succeeded A l l e n as commissioner 
of ADOC and v i c e 
p r e s i d e n t o f ACIFA on J a n u a r y 17, 2011,
1 
^Pursuant t o R u l e 
2 5 ( d ) , 
A l a . R. C i v . 
P., Thomas was 
a u t o m a t i c a l l y 
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 of A l l e n 
when he succeeded A l l e n as commissioner of 
ADOC on J a n u a r y 17, 
2011. 
3 
1111294 
moved the 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 
the Montgomery 
C i r c u i t C o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 6-3-9, A l a . Code 1975, 
which 
p r o v i d e s t h a t " i f , on t h e t r i a l o f 
any case i n 
any county, 
i t 
i s s u g g e s t e d by t h e B o a r d o f 
C o r r e c t i o n s o r 
i s o t h e r w i s e shown 
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 account o f 
t h e 
p r i s o n system, 
such 
case 
must be 
t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e p r o p e r 
c o u r t o f 
Montgomery County." 
See a l s o Ex p a r t e D a n i e l s , 941 So. 
2d 
251, 258 ( A l a . 
2006) 
( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e S t a t e does n o t waive 
i t s r i g h t t o t r a n s f e r a case t o 
Montgomery County p u r s u a n t t o 
§ 6-3-9 even i f 
venue i s n o t c h a l l e n g e d 
w i t h i n t h e time 
p r e s c r i b e d by R u l e 1 2 ( h ) ( 1 ) , A l a . 
R. C i v . P . ) . On o r about 
May 24, 2011, 
t h e 
B a r b o u r 
C i r c u i t C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n , 
and t h e 
case 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 
C o u r t . 
The t r i a l 
c o u r t t h e r e a f t e r approved c l a s s 
c e r t i f i c a t i o n 
f o r 
t h e a c t i o n , and, on A p r i l 17, 2012, 
ADOC, ACIFA, and 
Thomas moved t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t t o e n t e r a p a r t i a l 
summary 
judgment i n t h e i r 
f a v o r , 
a r g u i n g 
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 ' c l a i m s s e e k i n g money damages f r o m ADOC were b a r r e d 
by t h e 
d o c t r i n e o f S t a t e immunity and t h a t t h e 
c l a i m s a g a i n s t 
ACIFA had no f a c t u a l or l e g a l 
b a s i s . 
The c o r r e c t i o n a l 
o f f i c e r s f i l e d a r e s p o n s e , a r g u i n g t h a t t h e summary-judgment 
4 
1111294 
m o t i o n was w i t h o u t m e r i t and t h a t , i n 
any event, t h e B a r b o u r 
C i r c u i t C o u r t had a l r e a d y r e j e c t e d t h e S t a t e - i m m u n i t y argument 
b e f o r e t h e case 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 
C o u r t . 
On May 17, 2012, t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o n d u c t e d a h e a r i n g 
on t h e 
summary-judgment motion and, l a t e r t h a t day, e n t e r e d an 
o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e 
motion w i t h o u t s t a t i n g i t s r a t i o n a l e . ADOC, 
ACIFA, and Thomas now 
p e t i t i o n 
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 v a c a t e i t s o r d e r 
d e n y i n g 
t h e i r summary-judgment m o t i o n and t o e n t e r an o r d e r g r a n t i n g 
the same. 
I I . 
"Mandamus i s 
an e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t and 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 
i n 
t h e p e t i t i o n e r 
t o t h e o r d e r 
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 so, (3) t h e l a c k o f 
a n o t h e r 
adequate remedy, and (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 Land, 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 . 1998)). 
When we c o n s i d e r 
a mandamus p e t i t i o n , t h e scope o f our r e v i e w i s 
t o 
d e t e r m i n e whether t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t c l e a r l y exceeded 
i t s 
d i s c r e t i o n . 
Ex p a r t e Tegner, 682 So. 2d 396 
( A l a . 
1996)." 
S t a t e v. B u i , 
888 So. 2d 1227, 1229 ( A l a . 2004). 
We f u r t h e r 
note t h i s C o u r t ' s 
g e n e r a l 
r u l e t h a t we w i l l n o t r e v i e w t h e 
d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n f o r 
a summary judgment on a p e t i t i o n f o r 
5 
1111294 
the w r i t o f 
mandamus because an adequate remedy e x i s t s by 
way 
of an a p p e a l . 
Ex p a r t e Par 
Pharm., I n c . , 58 So. 
3d 767, 775¬
76 ( 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 motion f o r 
summary judgment grounded on  
a c l a i m o f immunity i s r e v i e w a b l e by 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 So. 2d 911, 
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. 
2d 794 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ) . 
I n t h e 
i n s t a n t case, ADOC and 
Thomas moved f o r 
a summary judgment on 
the 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 and 
Thomas 
i n h i s c a p a c i t y as commissioner o f ADOC on 
S t a t e - i m m u n i t y 
g r o u n d s ; t h u s , r e v i e w of t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t ' 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 judgment 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 of mandamus. 
However, ACIFA and 
Thomas have n o t 
argued t h a t t h e y a r e 
e n t i t l e d t o S t a t e immunity 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 
ACIFA and 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 of 
A C I F A ; r a t h e r , t h e y argue 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 "they have no c o n n e c t i o n whatsoever t o t h e 
[ 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 " because ACIFA has 
no r o l e 
i n 
p e r s o n n e l or p a y r o l l m a t t e r s 
a f f e c t i n g ADOC employees. 
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 
a c q u i s i t i o n of l a n d , 
i n s t i t u t i o n s , and f a c i l i t i e s f o r ADOC, 
and 
t h e y argue t h a t t h e l a c k of any c o n n e c t i o n between 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 and ACIFA e f f e c t i v e l y 
r e n d e r s 
those 
c l a i m s n o n j u s t i c i a b l e ; 
t h e r e f o r e , r e v i e w of t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of t h e i r summary-judgment m o t i o n on a p e t i t i o n 
f o r t h e w r i t of mandamus i s a v a i l a b l e because, t h e y argue, t h e 
i s s u e of 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 has been r a i s e d . 
See 
U n i v e r s i t y of South Alabama Med. C t r . v. M o b i l e 
I n f i r m a r y 
 
A s s ' n , 
809 So. 3d 735, 740-41 
( A l a . 2011) 
( s t a t i n g 
t h a t 
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 
C o n s t r .  
Co., 775 So. 2d 805 ( A l a . 
2000) ( h o l d i n g t h a t the q u e s t i o n of 
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 i s r e v i e w a b l e by a p e t i t i o n f o r a 
w r i t of mandamus). 
We 
d i s a g r e e , however, t h a t a j u s t i c i a b i l i t y 
i s s u e has 
been r a i s e d . "'Concepts of j u s t i c i a b i l i t y have been d e v e l o p e d 
t o 
i d e n t i f y a p p r o p r i a t e 
o c c a s i o n s 
f o r j u d i c i a l 
a c t i o n 
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 i n t o more s p e c i f i c 
c a t e g o r i e s of j u s t i c i a b i l i t y — 
a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n s , f e i g n e d and 
c o l l u s i v e 
c a s e s , 
s t a n d i n g , 
r i p e n e s s , 
mootness, 
p o l i t i c a l 
q u e s t i o n s , 
and 
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e 
q u e s t i o n s . ' " 
B l a c k ' s 
Law 
 
D i c t i o n a r y 943-44 
(9th ed. 2009) 
( q u o t i n g 13 C h a r l e s 
A l a n 
7 
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. 1 9 8 4 ) ) . 
Indeed, t h i s C o u r t has 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 c a t e g o r i e s of j u s t i c i a b i l i t y i n 
p r e v i o u s c a s e s . 
See, e.g., U n i v e r s i t y o f South Alabama Med. C t r . , 809 So. 3d 
a t 
741-42 
( d i s m i s s i n g 
a p p e a l where 
t h e r e was no 
a c t u a l 
c o n t r o v e r s y between 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 sought m e r e l y an a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n ) ; Fenn v.  
Ozark C i t y Sch. Bd. o f Educ., 9 So. 3d 484, 486 ( A l a . 2008) 
("'Chief among 
t h e s e 
elements 
[composing 
t h e concept o f 
j u s t i c i a b i l i t y ] 
i s t h e r e q u i r e m e n t 
t h a t a 
p l a i n t i f f 
have 
" 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 . " Ex  
p a r t e Izundu, 568 So. 2d 771, 772 ( A l a . 1990).'" 
( 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 cases 
o f t e n address r i p e n e s s i n t h e c o n t e x t of whether a case i s 
j u s t i c i a b l e , o r a p p r o p r i a t e f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w . " ) ; Town o f  
Elmore v. Town o f Coosada, 957 So. 2d 1096, 1100 ( A l a . 2006) 
("Because mootness 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 
c o n s i d e r 
t h e m e r i t s o f a 
c l a i m 
t h a t 
i s moot."); 
and 
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 Birmingham, 
912 
So. 2d 204, 221 ( A l a . 
2005) 
( d e c l i n i n g 
t o c o n s i d e r 
8 
1111294 
" n o n j u s t i c i a b l e 
p o l i t i c a l 
q u e s t i o n " 
i n v o l v i n g 
t h e 
l e g i s l a t u r e ' s v o t i n g 
p r o c e d u r e s ) . 
In t h i s case, however, ACIFA and Thomas a r e e s s e n t i a l l y 
a r g u i n g 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 ' c l a i m s a g a i n s t ACIFA 
have no b a s i s because, t h e y c l a i m , ACIFA has n o t h i n g t o do 
w i t h the 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 compensated 
or t h e funds w i t h w h i c h t h e y a r e compensated. 
T h i s argument 
goes t o t h e m e r i t s of 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 , and, 
r e g a r d l e s s of whatever m e r i t the argument might have, 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 of 
the m o t i o n f o r a summary judgment as t o ACIFA and 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 of ACIFA i s a c c o r d i n g l y not 
s u b j e c t t o mandamus r e v i e w . 
See Ex p a r t e Alabama S t a t e Bd. of  
C h i r o p r a c t i c Exam'rs, 11 So. 3d 221, 226-27 ( A l a . 
C i v . App. 
2007) 
( d e c l i n i n g t o address p e t i t i o n e r s ' argument t h a t t h e y 
were e n t i t l e d t o a w r i t of mandamus on t h e ground t h a t t h e 
p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s had no m e r i t ) . 
Thus, we r e v i e w o n l y ADOC 
and 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 ' 
c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t them f o r money damages a r e b a r r e d by p r i n c i p l e s of 
S t a t e immunity. 
9 
1111294 
I I I . 
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 immunity as i t 
a p p l i e s 
t o 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 , i n c l u d i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y 
the 
commissioner o f ADOC, as f o l l o w s i n H a l e y v. Barbour 
County, 885 So. 2d 783, 
788 ( A l a . 2004): 
" S e c t i o n 14, 
A l a . 
Const. 1901, p r o v i d e s 
' [ t ] h a t 
the S t a t e o f 
Alabama s h a l l never 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 . ' 
T h i s 
s e c t i o n 
a f f o r d s t h e S t a t e and i t s a g e n c i e s an 
' a b s o l u t e ' 
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  
County Dep't o f Human Res., 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 . 1901, 
§ 14, 
c o n f e r s on t h e S t a t e o f Alabama and i t s a g e n c i e s 
a b s o l u t e 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 County, 796 So. 2d 1100, 1103 ( A l a . 
2000) 
('Under A l a . Const. o f 1901, § 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 . 
T h i s 
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, t h i s C o u r t has d e s c r i b e d § 14 
as 
an 
'almost 
i n v i n c i b l e ' 
' w a l l ' 
o f 
immunity. 
Alabama S t a t e Docks v. Saxon, 631 So. 2d 943, 
946 
( A l a . 
1994) . 
T h i s 
' 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 Corp., 835 So. 
2d 
137, 
142 
( A l a . 
2002), 
and b a r s 
'almost 
e v e r y 
c o n c e i v a b l e t y p e o f 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 281, 283 (1971). 
Moreover, 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 
meaning o f 
§ 
14, 
such a case ' p r e s e n t s 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 cannot be w a i v e d o r 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 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 
a c t i o n s a r e , i n e f f e c t , 
a c t i o n s a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e . 
Lyons v. R i v e r Road C o n s t r . , I n c . , 858 So. 2d 
257, 
261 ( A l a . 
2003); M i t c h e l l v. D a v i s , 598 So. 2d 
801, 
10 
1111294 
806 ( A l a . 1992). 
'In d e t e r m i n i n g 
whether 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 or employee i s , i n f a c t , 
one 
a g a i n s t 
the S t a t e , 
[a] 
[ c ] o u r t 
w i l l 
c o n s i d e r 
such 
f a c t o r s as the n a t u r e o f the a c t i o n and the 
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 whether '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, whether the d e f e n d a n t i s s i m p l y 
a 
' c o n d u i t ' 
t h r o u g h 
w h i c h 
the 
p l a i n t i f f 
seeks 
r e c o v e r y of damages from the S t a t e , Barnes v. D a l e , 
530 
So. 
2d 770, 
784 
( A l a . 1988), and whether 
'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. 
Moreover, we note t h a t 
c l a i m 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 y 
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 c l a i m s a g a i n s t the 
e n t i t y t h e y r e p r e s e n t . 
H i n s o n v. H o l t , 776 So. 2d 
804, 810 
( A l a . C i v . App. 
1998); see a l s o M c M i l l i a n  
v. Monroe County, 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 
a g a i n s t 
a 
governmental 
o f f i c e r 
i n h i s 
o f f i c i a l 
c a p a c i t y i s the same as a s u i t a g a i n s t the e n t i t y o f 
w h i c h the o f f i c e r i s an a g e n t ) ; 
Y e l d e l l v. 
Cooper 
 
Green Hosp., I n c . , 956 F.2d 1056, 
1060 
(11th C i r . 
1992) 
( h o l d i n g 
t h a t 
o f f i c i a l - c a p a c i t y 
s u i t s 
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 of 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 
a g e n t ) . 
In t h i s c a s e , the commissioner 
r e p r e s e n t s 
[A]DOC, w h i c h , as a department 
of the 
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. 
Rodgers v. Hopper, 
768 So. 2d 963, 968 ( A l a . 
2000) ( h o l d i n g t h a t [A]DOC 
i s 
e n t i t l e d 
t o 
s o v e r e i g n 
immunity 
under 
§ 
14, 
because a judgment a g a i n s t i t 
would be p a i d from the 
t r e a s u r y o f the S t a t e ) . " 
Thus, ADOC and Thomas, i n h i s c a p a c i t y 
as commissioner 
o f 
ADOC, are g e n e r a l l y e n t i t l e d t o r e l y on the s h i e l d o f 
S t a t e 
immunity p r o v i d e d by § 14. 
Moreover, 
t h i s C o u r t has f u r t h e r 
11 
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 compensatory damages — 
i n c l u d i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y backpay — a r e 
b a r r e d by § 
14: 
" I n 
g e n e r a l , 
t h e S t a t e 
i s immune 
from 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 
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 r e s u l t i n 
t h e 
p l a i n t i f f ' s r e c o v e r y o f money from t h e S t a t e . 
See  
[Alabama A g r i c . & Mech. U n i v . v.] Jones, 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 compensatory damages. 
895 So. 2d a t 
875-76 
( h o l d i n g 
t h a t t h e d o c t r i n e o f 
s o v e r e i g n 
immunity b a r s 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 
backpay a g a i n s t a s t a t e u n i v e r s i t y based on 
a b r e a c h 
of 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 
of s o v e r e i g n 
immunity thus b a r s an a c t i o n 
s e e k i n g 
backpay. 
Jones, 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 
judgment 
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 back wages and compensatory 
damages, w h i c h a r e b a r r e d by A r t . I , § 14, o f t h e 
Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901." 
Latham v. Department o f C o r r . , 927 So. 2d 815, 821 ( A l a . 
2005). 
N e v e r t h e l e s s , 
c i t i n g Drummond Co. v. Alabama Department  
of 
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , 
937 So. 2d 56, 58 
( A l a . 
2006), t h e 
c o r r e c t i o n a l 
o f f i c e r s 
argue 
t h a t ADOC and Thomas a r e 
n o t 
e n t i t l e d t o S t a t e 
immunity because, 
t h e y 
argue, Thomas's 
a c t i o n s have been and c o n t i n u e 
t o be w i l l f u l , 
m a l i c i o u s , 
f r a u d u l e n t , 
i n bad 
f a i t h , 
and b a s e d 
on a 
m i s t a k e n 
12 
1111294 
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e l a w .
2 
T h i s 
C o u r t d i d r e c o g n i z e i n 
Drummond t h a t 
" ' a c t i o n s 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 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 and 
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 
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 o r 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 
o f law'" a r e 
n o t 
p r o h i b i t e d by § 
14. 
Drummond, 937 So. 
2d a t 
58 ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e C a r t e r , 395 
So. 
2d 65, 68 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) ) . 
However, i n 
Alabama Department o f  
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n v. H a r b e r t I n t e r n a t i o n a l , I n c . , 990 
So. 
2d 831, 
840 
( A l a . 2008), we f u r t h e r e x p l a i n e d t h e " e x c e p t i o n s " t o 
S t a t e 
immunity 
d i s c u s s e d i n Drummond, and our h o l d i n g i n 
H a r b e r t 
I n t e r n a t i o n a l makes c l e a r t h a t t h e " e x c e p t i o n " t h e 
c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s now seek t o r e l y upon i s 
n o t 
a p p l i c a b l e 
i n 
t h i s 
case: 
"These 
a c t i o n s 
[ a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e 
t h a t a r e 
n o t 
b a r r e d by § 14 and t h a t a r e 
d i s c u s s e d i n 
Drummond] 
2The 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 emphasize t h a t , 
i n December 2010, 
t h e 
Barbour 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 case based on S t a t e - i m m u n i t y grounds 
and 
t h a t ADOC and 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 ; however, 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 and 
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 
immunity based 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 
meaning o f 
§ 
14 
" p r e s e n t s 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 
cannot be w a i v e d 
P a t t e r s o n v. G l a d w i n Corp., 835 
So. 2d 
137, 142-43 ( A l a . 2002). 
13 
1111294 
are sometimes 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 Corp., 835 
So. 
2d 137, 
142 ( A l a . 2002). 
T h i s C o u r t has q u a l i f i e d 
those 
' 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 
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 o r 
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 t h e 
p l a i n t i f f ' s 
r e c o v e r y o f money from t h e [ S ] t a t e . " ' 
Alabama A g r i c . & Mech. U n i v . v. Jones, 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)) (emphasis added 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 do seek money damages 
from the 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 , and 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 by 
§ 14. Moreover, we note t h a t ADOC would s t i l l be e n t i t l e d t o 
S t a t e 
immunity even i f 
t h e 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 
a g a i n s t Thomas were 
p e r m i t t e d by Drummond because 
"these 
' e x c e p t i o n s ' t o [ S t a t e ] immunity a p p l y o n l y t o 
a c t i o n s 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 ; t h e y do n o t 
a p p l y t o a c t i o n s a g a i n s t 
the S t a t e o r a g a i n s t S t a t e a g e n c i e s . " 
Ex p a r t e Alabama Dep't 
of F i n . , 991 So. 2d 1254, 1257 ( A l a . 2008) . 
Thus, ADOC 
and 
Thomas, i n 
h i s c a p a c i t y as commissioner o f 
ADOC, a r e e n t i t l e d 
t o 
S t a t e immunity, and 
t h e t r i a l c o u r t a c c o r d i n g l y e r r e d i n 
14 
1111294 
f a i l i n g t o g r a n t 
t h e i r m o t i o n f o r a summary judgment 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, ACIFA, and 
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 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 
d e n y i n g 
t h e i r 
m o t i o n 
s e e k i n g 
a summary judgment on t h e 
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 f o r money damages and 
t o e n t e r 
an o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e 
m o t i o n . 
Because ADOC and 
Thomas, i n 
h i s 
o f f i c i a l 
c a p a c i t y as commissioner o f ADOC, a r e e n t i t l e d t o 
S t a t e immunity on those 
c l a i m s , we g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n as 
t o 
ADOC and 
Thomas, i n 
h i s c a p a c i t y as commissioner o f 
ADOC, 
and 
i s s u e t h e w r i t . 
However, ACIFA and Thomas, i n h i s 
o f f i c i a l 
c a p a c i t y as v i c e p r e s i d e n t o f 
ACIFA, have n o t 
argued t h a t t h e y 
are e n t i t l e d t o S t a t e immunity 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 
3 I n t h e i r response t o 
ADOC, ACIFA, and 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 
devote 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 S t a t e - a g e n t 
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 immunity. 
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 
immunity, and 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 . 2000), i n which 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 t h e r e f o r e n o t n e c e s s a r y . 
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 S t a t e immunity, c o n c e d i n g 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 Rodgers v. Hopper, 768 
So. 
2d 963, 967 
( A l a . 2000) 
("[W]e c o n c l u d e 
t h a t ACIFA and, 
d e r i v a t i v e l y , 
i t s 
o f f i c i a l s 
a r e 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 . " ) . 
15 
1111294 
them; r a t h e r , t h e y argue s i m p l y t h a t t h o s e c l a i m s l a c k m e r i t . 
That argument p r e s e n t s 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, and 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 r e g a r d t o t h e t h o s e c l a i m s because ACIFA and Thomas have 
an adequate remedy on a p p e a l . 
PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; WRIT ISSUED. 
W o o d a l l , 
B o l i n , P a r k e r , Main, and Wise, J J . , concur. 
Murdock and Shaw, J J . , 
concur 
s p e c i a l l y . 
Malone, C.J., r e c u s e s h i m s e l f . 
16 
1111294 
SHAW, J u s t i c e 
( c o n c u r r i n g 
s p e c i a l l y ) . 
I concur i n t h e h o l d i n g i n t h e main o p i n i o n 
t h a t t h e 
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 A u t h o r i t y ("ACIFA") 
and Kim Thomas, i n 
h i s 
c a p a c i t y as ex o f f i c i o v i c e p r e s i d e n t 
of ACIFA, a r e n o t e n t i t l e d t o mandamus 
r e l i e f . 
I f u r t h e r 
agree t h a t t h e 
Alabama Department o f C o r r e c t i o n s ("ADOC") 
and 
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 commissioner 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, 885 So. 
2d 783 ( A l a . 2004), and Latham v. Department o f C o r r e c t i o n s , 
927 So. 2d 815 ( A l a . 2005). 
T h i s 
C o u r t ' s 
d e c i s i o n 
i n Drummond 
Co. v. 
Alabama  
Department o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , 937 So. 2d 56 ( A l a . 
2006), n o t e s 
s e v e r a l t y p e s o f a c t i o n s t h a t a r e n o t b a r r e d by § 14; t h e s e 
a c t i o n s a r e sometimes r e f e r r e d t o as " e x c e p t i o n s " t o § 14 
immunity. 
One 
such 
" e x c e p t i o n " 
i n v o l v e s 
" ' a c t i o n s 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 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 and 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 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 o r 
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 o f law.'" Drummond, 
937 So. 2d a t 58 ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e C a r t e r , 395 So. 2d 65, 68 
17 
1111294 
( A l a . 
1 9 8 0 ) ) . 
T h i s " e x c e p t i o n " i s c i t e d by t h e c o r r e c t i o n a l 
o f f i c e r s 
as s u p p o r t 
f o r a l l o w i n g t h e i n s t a n t 
a c t i o n t o 
c o n t i n u e 
a g a i n s t ADOC and Thomas, as i t s commissioner. 
However, t h i s " e x c e p t i o n , " on i t s f a c e , would a p p l y o n l y t o 
Thomas, as a S t a t e 
o f f i c i a l , and 
n o t 
ADOC, w h i c h i s 
a S t a t e  
agency. Alabama Dep't o f Transp. v. H a r b e r t 
I n t ' l , I n c . , 990 
So. 2d 831, 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 o f f i c e r s 
named i n 
t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y - - a n d n o t 
S t a t e agencies--may 
be d e f e n d a n t s " i n 
p r o c e e d i n g s 
f a l l i n g under t h e " e x c e p t i o n s " 
d i s c u s s e d i n Drummond). 
Moreover, as t h i s C o u r t n o t e d i n 
H a r b e r t , t h e s o - c a l l e d " e x c e p t i o n s " t o 
§ 14 immunity a r e n o t 
a c t u a l l y e x c e p t i o n s and 
a r e 
n o n e t h e l e s s 
l i m i t e d : 
"These a c t i o n s [ d i s c u s s e d i n Drummond] a r e 
sometimes 
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 t h e s e 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 Corp., 835 So. 2d 137, 142 
( A l a . 
2002). 
T h i s 
C o u r t 
has 
q u a l i f i e d 
those 
' 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 
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 o r 
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 t h e 
p l a i n t i f f ' s 
r e c o v e r y o f money from t h e [ S ] t a t e . " ' 
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 . 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)) (emphasis added i n J o n e s ) . " 
18 
1111294 
H a r b e r t , 990 So. 2d a t 840. 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 
case seek r e c o v e r y o f money from t h e S t a t e . 
T h e r e f o r e , t h e 
Drummond " e x c e p t i o n " t h e c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s 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 commissioner o f ADOC. 
I note t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e " e x c e p t i o n " i n Drummond t h e 
c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s seek t o a p p l y s t a t e s t h a t " a c t i o n s 
f o r 
... damages" may be p u r s u e d , such " a c t i o n s " r e f e r t o o n l y 
c e r t a i n 
l i m i t e d 
a c t i o n s 
" a g a i n s t 
S t a t e 
o f f i c i a l s 
... 
i n d i v i d u a l l y 
because 
a c t i o n s 
f o r damages 
a g a i n s t 
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 " o r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s 
a r e 
a c t u a l l y a c t i o n s s e e k i n g t o r e c o v e r money from t h e S t a t e and 
a r e , t h u s , b a r r e d . 
Burgoon v. Alabama Dep't o f Human Res., 
835 So. 2d 131, 133 ( A l a . 2002) ("A s u i t 
a g a i n s t a S t a t e 
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 , 
i s a s u i t a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e . " ) . 
Even t h o s e a c t i o n s 
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 i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s , however, may 
s t i l l be b a r r e d by § 14, P h i l l i p s v. Thomas, 555 So. 2d 81, 83 
( A l a . 
1989) 
("State 
o f f i c e r s 
and 
employees, 
i n 
t h e i r 
[ i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s , ] ... a r e a b s o l u t e l y immune from 
s u i t 
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 
by 
19 
1111294 
S t a t e - a g e n t immunity under Ex p a r t e Cranman, 792 So. 2d 392 
( A l a . 2000). 
Murdock, J . , c o n c u r s . 
20