Title: Johnson v. Hetzel

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL: 08/10/2012
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
SPECIAL TERM, 2012
____________________
1110754
____________________
Brandon Johnson
v.
Gary Hetzel, warden of the Donaldson
 Correctional Facility, et al.
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court
(CV-11-615)
WOODALL, Justice.
This appeal arises from the Montgomery Circuit Court's
dismissal of Brandon Johnson's action against Gary Hetzel,
warden of the Donaldson Correctional Facility; Sean Carlton,
a 
correctional 
officer 
trainee 
at 
the 
facility; 
and
1110754
2
correctional 
officers 
Dennis 
Johnson 
and 
Joe 
Binder
(collectively "the defendants").  We hold that the circuit
court's 
judgment 
is 
void 
for 
lack 
of 
subject-matter
jurisdiction, and we dismiss the appeal.
On April 29, 2011, Johnson, who is incarcerated at the
Donaldson Correctional Facility serving a life sentence
without the possibility of parole following a conviction for
murder, was seen fighting with another inmate, Rodney Miller.
On that same date, Johnson was placed under "house arrest"
pending a disciplinary hearing.  Johnson argues that the
defendants "deliberately plac[ed] him in 'house arrest' two
(2) cells from [Miller] who he had a fight with earlier that
day, and [that] the defendants were responsible for the
protection of both inmates, but instead opened the door to
both cells at which time [Johnson] and [Miller] got into
another fight," in which, Johnson argues, he was injured.
Johnson's brief, at 8.
On May 24, 2011, Johnson filed a complaint in the
Montgomery Circuit Court against the defendants, alleging that
the defendants had "deliberately placed him in a very
dangerous situation" and that the circumstances of his house
1110754
3
arrest constituted a "clear violation of [his] right against
cruel and unusual punishment as guaranteed pursuant to Article
I, Section 15, of the Alabama Constitution of 1901, and the
8th and 14th Amendment[s] to the United States Constitution."
Also on May 24, 2011, Johnson filed in the circuit court an
affidavit of substantial hardship, requesting that the initial
docket fee be waived.  Johnson argues that the circuit court
never approved his affidavit of substantial hardship.
On November 16, 2011, the circuit court ordered a non-
jury trial to be held on January 24, 2012.  Johnson filed a
second affidavit of substantial hardship in December 2011.  On
January 23, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint or, in the alternative, for a summary judgment.  The
circuit court granted the defendants' motion on January 24,
2012, and dismissed Johnson's complaint.
Johnson has appealed the circuit court's judgment of
dismissal, arguing, in pertinent part, that the circuit court
never acquired jurisdiction over his case because he did not
pay the necessary filing fee and the circuit court never
approved either of the affidavits of substantial hardship he
had filed.  It is well established that "'[t]he payment of a
1110754
4
filing fee or the filing of a court-approved verified
statement of substantial 
hardship 
is 
a 
jurisdictional
prerequisite to the commencement of an action.'"  Odom v.
Odom, 89 So. 3d 121, 122 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) (quoting Vann
v. Cook, 989 So. 2d 556, 559 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008), citing in
turn De-Gas, Inc. v. Midland Res., 470 So. 2d 1218, 1222 (Ala.
1985)).  See also Ex parte Carter, 807 So. 2d 534, 536 (Ala.
2001) ("[T]he circuit court never had jurisdiction to consider
Carter's Rule 32[, Ala. R. Crim. P.,] petition, because it did
not collect a filing fee or approve Carter's affidavit of
substantial hardship at the time the petition was filed.").
The record in this case indicates that Johnson filed two
affidavits of substantial hardship -- one in May 2011 and
another in December 2011.  However, nothing in the record
indicates that the circuit court approved either of Johnson's
affidavits or that Johnson ever paid the required filing fee.
Indeed, the State is, in fact, silent on this issue.
Thus, 
for 
all 
that 
appears, 
the 
jurisdictional
prerequisite of the payment of the filing fee or the filing of
a court-approved verified statement of substantial hardship
was  not met in this case.  We must conclude, therefore, that
1110754
Our decision that the circuit court did not have
1
jurisdiction to enter its judgment pretermits consideration of
Johnson's argument that the circuit court exceeded its
discretion in dismissing his case before he had a chance to
respond to the defendants' motion to dismiss.
5
the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to enter its
judgment dismissing Johnson's complaint; thus, that judgment
is void.  See Odom, supra.  "[B]ecause a void judgment will
not support an appeal, we vacate the trial court's judgment
and dismiss the appeal."  Hunt Transition & Inaugural Fund,
Inc. v. Grenier, 782 So. 2d 270, 274 (Ala. 2000).1
JUDGMENT VACATED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
Malone, C.J., and Bolin, Murdock, and Main, JJ., concur.