Title: Haywood v. Alexander

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

Rel: 2/22/13 
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 
1111316 
Anthony Haywood and Daniel H a l l 
v. 
Dorothy "Jean Dot" 
Alexander 
Appeal from Clay C i r c u i t Court 
(CV-10-29) 
BRYAN, J u s t i c e . 
Anthony Haywood and 
D a n i e l H a l l have a p p e a l e d a judgment 
of t h e 
C l a y C i r c u i t C o u r t , d i s m i s s i n g c l a i m s a g a i n s t 
S h e r i f f 
Dorothy " J e a n D o t " 
A l e x a n d e r , 
w h i c h were f i l e d as p a r t o f 
a 
c o u n t e r c l a i m i n 
an a c t i o n f i l e d a g a i n s t P h i l l i p Eugene Green, 
Haywood, and H a l l by S c o t t Cotney, an a d m i n i s t r a t o r a t t h e 
1111316 
C l a y County 
j a i l 
("the j a i l " ) . 
We 
a f f i r m t h e judgment i n 
p a r t , 
r e v e r s e i t i n p a r t , and remand t h e case f o r f u r t h e r 
p r o c e e d i n g s . 
F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y 
I n 2010, Cotney sued Green, a former c o r r e c t i o n a l 
o f f i c e r 
at the j a i l , and Haywood and H a l l , former inmates a t t h e j a i l , 
a l l e g i n g 
d e f a m a t i o n , s l a n d e r , 
l i b e l , 
i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y , 
n e g l i g e n c e , and wantonness. The c l a i m s r e s u l t e d from a r e p o r t 
f i l e d by Green, Haywood, and H a l l w i t h t h e Alabama 
Department 
of C o r r e c t i o n s , c l a i m i n g t h a t Cotney had used h i s 
p o s i t i o n as 
an a d m i n i s t r a t o r a t t h e 
j a i l 
t o s e x u a l l y abuse and/or t o 
a s s a u l t Haywood and H a l l w h i l e t h e y were i n c a r c e r a t e d i n 
t h e 
j a i l . 
Haywood and H a l l 
f i l e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m 
a g a i n s t Cotney, 
p u r s u a n t t o 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a l l e g i n g 
t h a t 
Cotney had 
v i o l a t e d Haywood's and H a l l ' s r i g h t s under t h e F o u r t h , E i g h t h , 
and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . 
Haywood and H a l l a l s o named as c o u n t e r c l a i m d e f e n d a n t s the 
C l a y 
County 
Commission 
("the 
commission") 
and 
S h e r i f f 
A l e x a n d e r , i n 
h e r o f f i c i a l and i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s . 
Haywood 
and H a l l a l l e g e d " t h a t S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r ... had knowledge o f 
2 
1111316 
[ C o t n e y ' s ] 
u n l a w f u l 
a c t s 
... and p e r m i t t e d t h e abuse t o 
o c c u r . " 
Haywood and H a l l ' s b r i e f , a t 2. A r g u i n g a t h e o r y o f 
s u p e r v i s o r 
l i a b i l i t y , Haywood and H a l l "made t h e 
same c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t h e r 
as were made a g a i n s t Cotney i n 
a d d i t i o n t o 
a c l a i m 
f o r n e g l i g e n t s u p e r v i s i o n . " I d . 
Cotney d e n i e d t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m , and 
the commission and S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r moved t h e c i r c u i t 
c o u r t 
t o 
d i s m i s s 
t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m 
a g a i n s t 
them, 
c i t i n g 
Rule 
1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , A l a . 
R. C i v . 
P. Haywood and H a l l c o n s e n t e d t o t h e 
d i s m i s s a l o f t h e c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e c o m m i s s i o n ; t h o s e 
c l a i m s 
were d i s m i s s e d . 
A f t e r a h e a r i n g , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d i s m i s s e d 
the c l a i m s a g a i n s t S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r as w e l l , s t a t i n g 
s i m p l y 
t h a t t h e 
commission and S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s 
was " w e l l - t a k e n . " The c i r c u i t c o u r t c e r t i f i e d i t s judgment 
as 
f i n a l , p u r s u a n t t o Rule 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . 
R. C i v . 
P., and Haywood 
and H a l l 
a p p e a l e d . 
I s s u e s 
Haywood and H a l l argue t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d i n 
g r a n t i n g 
S h e r i f f 
A l e x a n d e r ' s 
motion t o d i s m i s s t h e c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t h e r . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e y argue (1) t h a t t h e i r 
f a i l u r e 
t o 
i d e n t i f y 
S h e r i f f 
A l e x a n d e r 
as a t h i r d - p a r t y d e f e n d a n t 
3 
1111316 
r a t h e r than a c o u n t e r c l a i m d e f e n d a n t was 
not 
f a t a l t o 
t h e i r 
c o m p l a i n t ; 
(2) t h a t Haywood and 
H a l l were c o n v i c t e d f e l o n s , 
not 
p r e t r i a l 
d e t a i n e e s , 
d u r i n g 
the 
r e l e v a n t 
p e r i o d 
and 
t h e r e f o r e had c e r t a i n r i g h t s under the E i g h t h Amendment, w h i c h 
were v i o l a t e d ; (3) t h a t Haywood's and H a l l ' s r i g h t s p u r s u a n t 
to F o u r t h Amendment were v i o l a t e d because t h e y were s u b j e c t t o 
"numerous a c t s of u n l a w f u l s t r i p s e a r c h e s and b o d i l y i n v a s i o n 
p e r p e t r a t e d upon them by Cotney w h i l e he was the a d m i n i s t r a t o r 
of the [ j a i l ] " ; (4) t h a t S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r i s not e n t i t l e d t o 
immunity under the E l e v e n t h Amendment of the U n i t e d 
S t a t e s 
C o n s t i t u t i o n on the f e d e r a l c l a i m s a g a i n s t her i n her 
o f f i c i a l 
c a p a c i t y , or t o S t a t e immunity p u r s u a n t t o A r t i c l e I , § 
14, 
Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n 1901, on the s t a t e - l a w c l a i m s a g a i n s t her 
i n b o t h her i n d i v i d u a l and 
o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s ; and 
(5) t h a t 
S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r i s not e n t i t l e d t o q u a l i f i e d immunity on the 
f e d e r a l c l a i m s a g a i n s t 
h e r . 
S t a n d a r d of Review 
"On 
a p p e a l , 
a d i s m i s s a l i s not 
e n t i t l e d t o a 
p r e s u m p t i o n 
of 
c o r r e c t n e s s . 
The 
a p p r o p r i a t e 
s t a n d a r d 
of 
r e v i e w 
under R u l e 
1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) [ , A l a . 
R. 
C i v . 
P.,] 
i s whether, when the a l l e g a t i o n s of 
the 
c o m p l a i n t 
are v i e w e d most s t r o n g l y i n the 
p l e a d e r ' s 
f a v o r , i t appears t h a t the p l e a d e r c o u l d prove 
any 
s e t of 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s 
t h a t would 
e n t i t l e 
[ h i m ] 
t o 
r e l i e f . 
In making t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n , 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
4 
1111316 
does 
not 
c o n s i d e r 
whether 
the 
p l a i n t i f f 
w i l l 
u l t i m a t e l y 
p r e v a i l , 
but 
o n l y 
whether 
[ h e ] 
may 
p o s s i b l y 
p r e v a i l . 
We 
note 
t h a t 
a R u l e 
12(b) (6) 
d i s m i s s a l 
i s p r o p e r 
o n l y when 
i t appears 
beyond 
doubt t h a t the 
p l a i n t i f f 
can prove no s e t of 
f a c t s 
i n 
s u p p o r t 
of 
the 
c l a i m 
t h a t would 
e n t i t l e 
the 
p l a i n t i f f t o 
r e l i e f . " 
Nance v. Matthews, 622 So. 2d 297, 
299 
( A l a . 1993) 
( c i t a t i o n s 
o m i t t e d ) . 
A n a l y s i s 
The 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t 
d i d not 
s p e c i f y i n i t s judgment 
of 
d i s m i s s a l the r e a s o n s i t g r a n t e d S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r ' s motion t o 
d i s m i s s . 
On 
a p p e a l , Haywood and 
H a l l 
a t t a c k 
the 
s e v e r a l 
grounds p r e s e n t e d 
i n the m o t i o n , a r g u i n g 
t h a t none of t h o s e 
grounds p r o v i d e d 
a p r o p e r b a s i s 
f o r d i s m i s s i n g 
the 
c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r . 
F i r s t , 
Haywood 
and 
H a l l 
note 
t h a t 
S h e r i f f 
A l e x a n d e r 
argued i n her 
m o t i o n 
t h a t 
" [ t ] h e 
a s s e r t e d 
' c o u n t e r c l a i m s ' 
[ w e r e ] n o t , 
i n f a c t , c o u n t e r c l a i m s 
and [ w e r e ] i n s t e a d 
t h i r d 
p a r t y c l a i m s t h a t [ w e r e ] due t o be d i s m i s s e d . " 
She went on t o 
a r g u e : 
" S h e r i f f 
A l e x a n d e r 
[ i s ] not 
[ a ] 
p a r t [ y ] 
t o 
the 
o r i g i n a l l a w s u i t i n t h i s m a t t e r . [She 
i s ] , i n s t e a d , 
[ a ] 
t h i r d p a r t [ y ] t o the 
i n i t i a l 
l a w s u i t . 
I t i s 
t h e r e f o r e 
a misnomer 
t o 
c a l l 
the 
c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t 
[ h e r ] ' C o u n t e r C l a i m s , ' because c o u n t e r c l a i m s 
under 
5 
1111316 
Rule 13 o f t h e 
Alabama R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e a r e 
a s s e r t e d o n l y a g a i n s t t h e o r i g i n a l 
p l a i n t i f f ( s ) . " 
However, as Haywood and H a l l n o t e , R u l e 
1 3 ( h ) , A l a . 
R. 
C i v . P., p r o v i d e s : " P e r s o n s o t h e r than t h o s e made p a r t i e s 
t o 
the o r i g i n a l a c t i o n may be made p a r t i e s t o a c o u n t e r c l a i m o r 
c r o s s - c l a i m i n 
a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e 
p r o v i s i o n s o f R u l e s 19 
and 
20[, A l a . 
R. C i v . P . ] . " 
R u l e 
2 0 ( a ) , A l a . 
R. C i v . 
P., 
p r o v i d e s , i n 
p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 
" A l l 
p e r s o n s 
may be 
j o i n e d i n t h e a c t i o n as 
d e f e n d a n t s 
i f t h e r e 
i s a s s e r t e d 
a g a i n s t 
them 
j o i n t l y , s e v e r a l l y , o r 
i n 
t h e 
a l t e r n a t i v e , any r i g h t 
of 
r e l i e f i n r e s p e c t o f o r a r i s i n g out o f t h e same 
t r a n s a c t i o n , o c c u r r e n c e , o r s e r i e s o f t r a n s a c t i o n s 
or o c c u r r e n c e s and i f 
any q u e s t i o n o f law o r f a c t 
common t o a l l 
d e f e n d a n t s w i l l a r i s e i n 
t h e 
a c t i o n . " 
The 
c l a i m s 
a l l e g e d a g a i n s t 
S h e r i f f 
A l e x a n d e r 
i n 
t h e 
c o u n t e r c l a i m based on h e r s u p e r v i s o r y 
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r 
Cotney and f o r t h e j a i l 
c l e a r l y 
a r i s e out o f t h e same 
t r a n s a c t i o n s o r o c c u r r e n c e s as do t h e c l a i m s a g a i n s t Cotney. 
Thus, p u r s u a n t t o R u l e s 13(h) 
and 2 0 ( a ) , A l a . 
R. C i v . 
P., 
t h e 
a d d i t i o n o f S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r t o 
t h e a c t i o n as a c o u n t e r c l a i m 
d e f e n d a n t and n o t 
as a t h i r d - p a r t y d e f e n d a n t was p r o p e r , and 
S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r was not e n t i t l e d t o 
have t h e c l a i m s a g a i n s t 
her d i s m i s s e d on t h e b a s i s t h a t i t 
was e r r o r t o do so. See 
a l s o 
C e n t u r y 
21 Paramount 
R e a l 
E s t a t e , I n c . v. Hometown 
6 
1111316 
R e a l t y , LLC, 34 So. 3d 658, 663 
( A l a . 2009) 
("Rule 13(h) 
p r o v i d e s t h a t p e r s o n s o t h e r than t h e o r i g i n a l p a r t i e s t o 
t h e 
a c t i o n may be j o i n e d i n 
a c c o r d a n c e w i t h R u l e 20 as a d d i t i o n a l 
d e f e n d a n t s 
i n 
c o n n e c t i o n 
w i t h 
a 
p a r t y ' s 
f i l i n g 
o f a 
c o u n t e r c l a i m . 
R u l e 20(a) p r o v i d e s 
t h a t 
a l l p e r s o n s may be 
j o i n e d i n 
one a c t i o n as d e f e n d a n t s i f t h e c l a i m s a g a i n s t them 
a r i s e out 
o f t h e 
same t r a n s a c t i o n s o r o c c u r r e n c e s . " ) . 
S h e r i f f 
A l e x a n d e r has s u b m i t t e d no b r i e f t o t h i s C o u r t and thus has 
made no argument t o t h e c o n t r a r y . 
Haywood and H a l l n e x t a r g u e : 
" S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r argued i n t h e lower 
c o u r t 
t h a t t h e c l a i m a g a i n s t h e r f o r v i o l a t i o n o f 
c i v i l 
and 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 
r i g h t s 
under 
t h e ... 
E i g h t h 
Amendment t o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e U n i t e d 
S t a t e s 
s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d because H a l l and Haywood were 
' p r e - t r i a l 
d e t a i n e e s ' 
and ' o n l y 
t h e 
F o u r t e e n t h 
Amendment c o u l d a c t u a l l y a p p l y ' t o t h e i r c l a i m s . " 
Haywood and H a l l ' s b r i e f , a t 25. 
I n h e r m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , 
S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r argued t h a t , "as p r e - t r i a l d e t a i n e e s , 
o n l y 
the F o u r t e e n t h Amendment c o u l d a c t u a l l y a p p l y t o these c l a i m s , 
as 
t h e 
E i g h t [ h ] 
Amendment 
a p p l i e s 
o n l y 
t o 
c o n v i c t e d 
p r i s o n e r s , " and c i t e d B e l l v. W o l f i s h , 441 U.S. 520 (1979), i n 
s u p p o r t o f h e r argument. 
The Supreme C o u r t i n B e l l s t a t e d : 
"The C o u r t o f A p p e a l s p r o p e r l y r e l i e d on t h e 
Due 
P r o c e s s 
C l a u s e 
r a t h e r than t h e E i g h t h Amendment i n 
7 
1111316 
c o n s i d e r i n g the c l a i m s of p r e t r i a l d e t a i n e e s . 
Due 
p r o c e s s 
r e q u i r e s t h a t a 
p r e t r i a l 
d e t a i n e e 
not 
be 
p u n i s h e d . 
A s e n t e n c e d inmate, on the o t h e r hand, 
may be p u n i s h e d , a l t h o u g h t h a t punishment may not be 
' c r u e l and u n u s u a l ' under the E i g h t h Amendment. 
The 
C o u r t 
r e c o g n i z e d 
t h i s 
d i s t i n c t i o n 
i n Ingraham 
v. 
 
W r i g h t , 430 U.S. 
651, 671-672, n.40 
(1977): 
' E i g h t h 
Amendment s c r u t i n y 
i s a p p r o p r i a t e 
o n l y 
a f t e r 
the 
S t a t e 
has 
c o m p l i e d 
w i t h 
the 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 
g u a r a n t e e s 
t r a d i t i o n a l l y 
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h 
c r i m i n a l 
p r o s e c u t i o n s . See U n i t e d S t a t e s v. L o v e t t , 328 
U.S. 
303, 
317-318 
(1946). 
... 
[T]he 
S t a t e 
does 
not 
a c q u i r e the power t o p u n i s h 
w i t h w h i c h the 
E i g h t h 
Amendment i s c o n c e r n e d u n t i l a f t e r i t has s e c u r e d 
a 
f o r m a l a d j u d i c a t i o n of g u i l t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h 
due 
p r o c e s s 
of law. 
Where the 
S t a t e seeks t o impose 
punishment 
w i t h o u t 
such 
an 
a d j u d i c a t i o n , 
the 
p e r t i n e n t 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 
g u a r a n t e e 
i s 
the 
Due 
P r o c e s s C l a u s e 
of the F o u r t e e n t h Amendment.'" 
B e l l , 441 U.S. 
a t 537 
n.16. 
However, Haywood a l l e g e s t h a t he was abused a t the 
j a i l 
from 2008 t o 2010; 
H a l l a l l e g e s t h a t he was abused a f t e r h i s 
t r a n s f e r t o the 
j a i l i n 2008. Haywood was a p r e t r i a l 
d e t a i n e e 
i n 
e a r l y 2008, but he e n t e r e d a g u i l t y p l e a l a t e r t h a t 
year 
t o , 
among o t h e r t h i n g s , a charge of u n l a w f u l p o s s e s s i o n of a 
c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e . 
Thus, Haywood was a c o n v i c t e d f e l o n f o r 
a t l e a s t p a r t of the r e l e v a n t p e r i o d . 
See 
§ 13A-12-212 ( b ) , 
A l a . 
Code 1975 
("Unlawful p o s s e s s i o n of a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e 
i s a C l a s s C f e l o n y . " ) . 
H a l l p l e a d e d g u i l t y i n 2006 t o t h i r d -
degree b u r g l a r y and, 
t h e r e f o r e , was 
a c o n v i c t e d f e l o n d u r i n g 
8 
1111316 
the 
r e l e v a n t 
p e r i o d . 
See § 13A-7-7(b), A l a . Code 
1975 
( " B u r g l a r y 
i n t h e 
t h i r d 
degree 
i s a 
C l a s s 
C 
f e l o n y . ) . 
T h e r e f o r e , 
S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r was not e n t i t l e d t o have t h e 
E i g h t h Amendment c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t h e r d i s m i s s e d 
on t h e b a s i s 
t h a t Haywood and H a l l were p r e t r i a l 
d e t a i n e e s 
t o whom t h e 
p r o t e c t i o n s of the E i g h t h Amendment d i d not a p p l y . 
S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r a l s o argued i n t h e c o u r t below 
t h a t 
Haywood's 
and H a l l ' s 
F o u r t h 
Amendment 
c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t 
h e r 
s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d 
because t h e y had not a l l e g e d t h a t she 
" p e r s o n a l l y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n any t y p e o f s e a r c h o r s e i z u r e of 
[ H a l l and Haywood]." 
Haywood and H a l l do not d i s p u t e 
t h a t 
S h e r i f f 
A l e x a n d e r 
d i d not p e r s o n a l l y 
p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e 
s e a r c h e s t h e y 
a l l e g e v i o l a t e d t h e F o u r t h Amendment. 
They 
argue, i n s t e a d : 
"Haywood 
and H a l l 
c l a i m 
v i o l a t i o n s of 
t h e i r 
F o u r t h 
Amendment 
r i g h t under 
t h e 
U n i t e d 
S t a t e s 
C o n s t i t u t i o n t o be 
f r e e from u n l a w f u l 
s e a r c h 
and 
s e i z u r e as t h e y were t h e v i c t i m s of numerous a c t s o f 
u n l a w f u l 
s t r i p 
s e a r c h e s 
and 
b o d i l y 
i n v a s i o n 
p e r p e t r a t e d 
upon them by Cotney w h i l e he was t h e 
a d m i n i s t r a t o r of t h e [ j a i l ] . 
S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r has 
l e g a l 
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and s u p e r v i s o r 
l i a b i l i t y f o r 
Cotney's w r o n g f u l 
conduct as she 'has t h e l e g a l 
c u s t o d y and charge of t h e j a i l i n h e r county and a l l 
p r i s o n e r s 
committed 
t h e r e t o ' 
and 
thus 
has 
s u p e r v i s o r y 
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y over Cotney." 
Haywood and H a l l ' s b r i e f , a t 26 (emphasis added). 
9 
1111316 
" ' " S u p e r v i s o r 
l i a b i l i t y [under § 1983] o c c u r s 
e i t h e r when t h e s u p e r v i s o r p e r s o n a l l y p a r t i c i p a t e s 
i n 
t h e a l l e g e d 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 
v i o l a t i o n 
o r when 
t h e r e i s 
a c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n between a c t i o n s o f 
t h e 
s u p e r v i s i n g o f f i c i a l and t h e a l l e g e d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 
d e p r i v a t i o n . 
The 
c a u s a l 
c o n n e c t i o n 
can 
be 
e s t a b l i s h e d when a h i s t o r y o f w i d e s p r e a d abuse p u t s 
the r e s p o n s i b l e s u p e r v i s o r on n o t i c e o f t h e need t o 
c o r r e c t t h e a l l e g e d d e p r i v a t i o n , and [she] f a i l s t o 
do so. The d e p r i v a t i o n s t h a t c o n s t i t u t e w i d e s p r e a d 
abuse s u f f i c i e n t t o n o t i c e t h e s u p e r v i s i n g 
o f f i c i a l 
must be o b v i o u s , f l a g r a n t , rampant, and o f c o n t i n u e d 
d u r a t i o n , r a t h e r t h a n i s o l a t e d 
o c c u r r e n c e s . " ' " 
Ex p a r t e Alabama Dep't o f Youth S e r v s . , 880 So. 2d 393, 403 
( A l a . 
2003) ( q u o t i n g Braddy v. F l o r i d a Dep't o f Labor & Emp't 
Sec. , 133 F.3d 797, 802 (11th 
C i r . 1998), q u o t i n g i n t u r n 
Brown v. 
C r a w f o r d , 
906 F.2d 667, 671 
(11th C i r . 
1990) 
(emphasis o m i t t e d ) ) . 
Haywood and H a l l ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m 
a l l e g e s 
t h a t 
S h e r i f f 
A l e x a n d e r 
"had 
knowledge 
t h a t 
H a l l and Haywood were 
b e i n g 
s u b j e c t e d 
t o s e x u a l 
a s s a u l t on an 
o n g o i n g and 
c o n t i n u o u s 
b a s i s w h i l e i n t h e c u s t o d y o f 
[ S h e r i f f 
A l e x a n d e r ] 
y e t d i d not t a k e 
a p p r o p r i a t e 
a c t i o n . 
[ S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r ] , 
d e s p i t e knowledge o f customs 
and 
p r a c t i c e s o f t h e C l a y 
County 
j a i l 
i n t h e 
e x p l o i t a t i o n 
o f i t s inmates and t h e 
o p p o r t u n i t y 
c r e a t e d t h e r e b y f o r 
abuse, d i d 
n o t t a k e 
a p p r o p r i a t e 
a c t i o n t o p r e v e n t such abuse and d i d 
t h e r e b y 
d e p r i v e 
[Haywood and H a l l ] o f t h e i r r i g h t s a g a i n s t c r u e l and 
u n u s u a l 
punishment, 
i n v a s i o n o f 
t h e i r 
r i g h t t o 
p r i v a c y and b o d i l y i n t e g r i t y and due p r o c e s s 
r i g h t s 
under t h e F o u r t h , E i g h t h and F o u r t e e n t h Amendment[s] 
10 
1111316 
t o 
t h e 
C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e 
U n i t e d 
S t a t e s i n 
v i o l a t i o n o f 42 U.S.C. § 1983." 
Thus, t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m 
a l l e g e s "a c a u s a l 
c o n n e c t i o n 
between a c t i o n s o f [ S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r 
( i . e . , h e r f a i l u r e t o 
a d d r e s s t h e a l l e g e d 'ongoing and c o n t i n u o u s ' s e x u a l a s s a u l t o f 
C l a y 
County 
i n m a t e s ) , ] 
and t h e 
a l l e g e d 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 
d e p r i v a t i o n 
[ ( i . e . , t h e v i o l a t i o n o f Haywood's and H a l l ' s 
F o u r t h Amendment r i g h t s ) ] . " 
Ex p a r t e Alabama Dep't o f Youth  
S e r v s . , 
880 So. 2d a t 403. 
T h e r e f o r e , 
p u r s u a n t 
t o 
t h i s 
C o u r t ' s 
d e c i s i o n i n Ex p a r t e Alabama Department o f Youth  
S e r v i c e s , S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r i s 
n o t e n t i t l e d t o have Haywood's 
and H a l l ' s F o u r t h Amendment c l a i m s a g a i n s t h e r d i s m i s s e d on 
the b a s i s t h a t she cannot be h e l d v i c a r i o u s l y l i a b l e f o r t h e 
a l l e g e d 
v i o l a t i o n s .
1 
Haywood and H a l l n e x t argue: 
" S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r i s 
not e n t i t l e d t o a b s o l u t e 
immunity p u r s u a n t t o t h e E l e v e n t h Amendment t o 
t h e 
C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . 
Her argument i n 
the 
[ c i r c u i t ] 
c o u r t t h a t she has a b s o l u t e immunity 
a g a i n s t s t a t e law c l a i m s due t o h e r p o s i t i o n as an 
e x e c u t i v e 
o f f i c e r o f t h e S t a t e o f Alabama 
under 
1No argument was made i n e i t h e r t h e motion t o d i s m i s s o r 
i n Haywood and H a l l ' s b r i e f on a p p e a l as t o whether " u n l a w f u l 
s t r i p 
s e a r c h e s 
and b o d i l y 
i n v a s i o n " 
c o n s t i t u t e 
" i l l e g a l 
s e a r c h e s o r s e i z u r e s " f o r 
purposes o f t h e F o u r t h Amendment. 
T h e r e f o r e , we do n o t a d d r e s s t h a t i s s u e a t t h i s 
t i m e . 
11 
1111316 
A r t i c l e I , 
§ 14 o f t h e 
Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 
1901, 
s h o u l d 
f a i l . " 
Haywood and H a l l ' s b r i e f , a t 28. 
S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r argued i n 
h e r b r i e f i n s u p p o r t o f 
h e r 
motion t o d i s m i s s t h a t " [ t ] h e f e d e r a l c l a i m s a g a i n s t [her] 
i n 
her o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y a r e 
b a r r e d by t h e E l e v e n t h Amendment t o 
the U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . " 
She a l s o argued t h a t , "as 
an 
e x e c u t i v e 
o f f i c e r o f t h e S t a t e , 
[she] i s immune from 
s u i t 
under 
A r t i c l e I , § 14 o f t h e Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901. 
T h i s s e c t i o n immunizes S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r from a l l s t a t e law 
c l a i m s , even though she i s [being] sued i n 
h e r i n d i v i d u a l and 
o f f i c i a l 
c a p a c i t i e s . " 
W i t h r e g a r d t o t h e s t a t e - l a w c l a i m s , 
S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r 
c i t e d , among o t h e r c a s e s , H e r e f o r d v. J e f f e r s o n County, 586 
So. 2d 209 ( A l a . 
1991), i n which 
t h i s 
C o u r t h e l d 
t h a t a 
s h e r i f f was e n t i t l e d t o S t a t e immunity under § 14 on c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t him i n b o t h h i s i n d i v i d u a l and o f f i c i a l 
c a p a c i t i e s . 
T h i s C o u r t s t a t e d : 
"In 
P a r k e r v. Amerson, 519 So. 2d 442 ( A l a . 1987), 
the 
E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t 
C o u r t o f A p p e a l s 
asked 
t h i s 
C o u r t t o d e c i d e whether a s h e r i f f i s 
an employee o f 
a 
county 
f o r purposes 
o f 
h o l d i n g 
t h e 
county 
v i c a r i o u s l y 
l i a b l e . 
We h e l d t h a t a s h e r i f f i s an 
employee o f t h e s t a t e , r a t h e r than a c o u n t y , based 
on 
t h e f o l l o w i n g 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 
p r o v i s i o n : 
'The 
12 
1111316 
e x e c u t i v e department s h a l l c o n s i s t of a g o v e r n o r 
... 
and a s h e r i f f f o r each c o u n t y . ' 
A r t i c l e V, § 
112, 
Alabama 
C o n s t i t u t i o n 
of 
1901. 
As 
e x e c u t i v e 
o f f i c e r s , 
s h e r i f f s 
have 
s o v e r e i g n 
immunity 
under  
A r t i c l e I , § 14, of the Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n , w h i c h 
r e a d s : 
'[T]he S t a t e of 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 of law or e q u i t y . ' The 
o n l y 
e x c e p t i o n s t o such immunity are f o r a c t i o n s b r o u g h t 
a g a i n s t a s h e r i f f : 
"'(1) t o compel him t o p e r f o r m h i s d u t i e s , 
(2) t o compel him 
t o p e r f o r m 
m i n i s t e r i a l 
a c t s , 
(3) 
t o 
e n j o i n 
him 
from 
e n f o r c i n g 
u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 
laws, 
(4) 
t o e n j o i n 
him 
from 
a c t i n g i n bad 
f a i t h , 
f r a u d u l e n t l y , 
beyond h i s 
a u t h o r i t y , or under 
m i s t a k e n 
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the law, or 
(5) t o seek 
c o n s t r u c t i o n 
of 
a 
s t a t u t e 
under 
the 
D e c l a r a t o r y 
Judgment 
A c t 
i f 
he 
i s 
a 
n e c e s s a r y p a r t y f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the 
S t a t u t e . ' " 
586 So. 2d a t 210 
( q u o t i n g P a r k e r , 519 So. 2d a t 443 
(emphasis 
a d d e d ) ) . 
Haywood and 
H a l l have not argued t h a t any 
of 
the 
e x c e p t i o n s 
l i s t e d i n H e r e f o r d 
a p p l y t o t h e i r c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t 
S h e r i f f 
A l e x a n d e r . 
Nor 
have t h e y 
c i t e d 
any 
a u t h o r i t y 
t o 
s u p p o r t 
t h e i r argument t h a t S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r i s not 
e n t i t l e d 
t o immunity on the s t a t e - l a w c l a i m s a g a i n s t 
h e r . 
S i m i l a r l y , Haywood and H a l l have not c i t e d any a u t h o r i t y 
f o r t h e i r argument t h a t S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r i s not e n t i t l e d t o 
immunity on the 
f e d e r a l c l a i m s a g a i n s t her 
i n her 
o f f i c i a l 
c a p a c i t y . 
As 
the 
U n i t e d 
S t a t e s 
C o u r t 
of A p p e a l s 
f o r 
the 
13 
1111316 
E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t has n o t e d , c l a i m s a g a i n s t a s h e r i f f i n 
h i s o r 
her 
o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y made p u r s u a n t t o § 1983 a r e p r o h i b i t e d 
by t h e E l e v e n t h Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . 
See Dean v. B a r b e r , 951 F.2d 1210, 1215 n.5 (11th C i r . 1992) 
("Dean's s u i t , t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t i t a t t e m p t s t o h o l d 
S h e r i f f 
B a i l e y o r o t h e r members o f t h e J e f f e r s o n County 
S h e r i f f ' s 
Department 
l i a b l e i n t h e i r 
o f f i c i a l 
c a p a c i t y under s e c t i o n 
1983, 
i s b a r r e d because t h e s h e r i f f s a r e employees o f t h e 
S t a t e o f Alabama. 
Dean's s u i t a g a i n s t t h e s h e r i f f s i n t h e i r 
o f f i c i a l 
c a p a c i t y , t h e r e f o r e , i s p r o h i b i t e d by t h e E l e v e n t h 
Amendment because t h e S t a t e o f Alabama i s 
t h e r e a l p a r t y i n 
i n t e r e s t . " ) . 
Haywood and H a l l have n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t t h e c i r c u i t 
c o u r t e r r e d i n d i s m i s s i n g t h e f e d e r a l c l a i m s a g a i n s t 
S h e r i f f 
A l e x a n d e r i n h e r o f f i c i a l 
c a p a c i t y o r t h e s t a t e - l a w 
c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t 
S h e r i f f 
A l e x a n d e r i n h e r o f f i c i a l 
and 
i n d i v i d u a l 
c a p a c i t i e s . 
T h e r e f o r e , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s judgment i s 
due 
t o 
be a f f i r m e d w i t h r e g a r d t o those 
c l a i m s . 
14 
1111316 
Haywood and H a l l a l s o argue t h a t S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r i s not 
e n t i t l e d t o q u a l i f i e d immunity on the f e d e r a l c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t 
her i n her i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y .
2 
T h i s C o u r t has 
s t a t e d : 
"'[G]overnment 
o f f i c i a l s 
p e r f o r m i n g 
d i s c r e t i o n a r y 
f u n c t i o n s 
g e n e r a l l y 
are 
s h i e l d e d from 
l i a b i l i t y 
f o r 
c i v i l damages 
i n s o f a r as t h e i r conduct does not v i o l a t e 
c l e a r l y 
e s t a b l i s h e d 
s t a t u t o r y 
o r 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s of which a r e a s o n a b l e 
p e r s o n would have known.' 
"Harlow v. F i t z g e r a l d , 457 U.S. 
800, 
818, 
102 S. 
C t . 
2727, 73 L. Ed. 
2d 396 
(1982). 
' Q u a l i f i e d immunity 
i s d e s i g n e d t o a l l o w government o f f i c i a l s 
t o 
a v o i d 
the expense and d i s r u p t i o n of g o i n g t o t r i a l , and i s 
not m e r e l y a defense t o l i a b i l i t y . ' Hardy v. Town of  
H a y n e v i l l e , 
50 
F. Supp. 2d 
1176, 
1189 
(M.D. 
A l a . 
1999) . 
'An 
o f f i c i a l 
i s 
e n t i t l e d 
t o 
q u a l i f i e d 
immunity i f he i s p e r f o r m i n g d i s c r e t i o n a r y f u n c t i o n s 
and h i s a c t i o n s do "'not v i o l a t e c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d 
s t a t u t o r y 
or 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s 
of 
w h i c h 
a 
r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n would have known.'"' Hardy, 50 
F. 
Supp. 
2d 
a t 
1189 
( q u o t i n g 
L a n c a s t e r 
v. 
Monroe 
 
County, 116 
F.3d 
1419, 
1424 
(11th C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) ) . 
"'While the d e f e n s e of q u a l i f i e d immunity 
i s 
t y p i c a l l y 
a d d r e s s e d 
a t 
the 
summary 
judgment s t a g e of a case, i t may 
be, 
as i t 
was 
i n t h i s case, r a i s e d and c o n s i d e r e d 
on 
a 
motion 
t o 
d i s m i s s . 
See 
C h e s s e r 
v. 
 
S p a r k s , 
248 
F.3d 
1117, 
1121 
(11th 
C i r . 
2Haywood and 
H a l l argue t h a t 
S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r 
i s 
not 
e n t i t l e d t o q u a l i f i e d immunity on any 
of the c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t 
h e r . 
Because we 
have d e t e r m i n e d 
t h a t 
she 
i s e n t i t l e d 
t o 
immunity on 
the 
f e d e r a l c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t 
her 
i n her 
o f f i c i a l 
c a p a c i t y and on a l l s t a t e - l a w c l a i m s a g a i n s t h e r , our a n a l y s i s 
w i t h r e g a r d 
t o q u a l i f i e d immunity i s l i m i t e d t o the 
f e d e r a l 
c l a i m s a g a i n s t S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r i n her i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y . 
15 
1111316 
2001). 
The m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s 
w i l l be 
g r a n t e d i f 
t h e " c o m p l a i n t 
f a i l s t o a l l e g e 
the 
v i o l a t i o n 
o f a 
c l e a r l y 
e s t a b l i s h e d 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 
r i g h t . " 
I d . 
( c i t i n g 
W i l l i a m s 
v. A l a . S t a t e 
U n i v . , 102 F.3d 
1179, 1182 (11th C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) ) . 
Whether t h e 
c o m p l a i n t 
a l l e g e s such a v i o l a t i o n i s a 
q u e s t i o n o f law t h a t we r e v i e w de novo, 
a c c e p t i n g 
t h e 
f a c t s 
a l l e g e d 
i n t h e 
c o m p l a i n t 
as 
t r u e 
and 
d r a w i n g a l l 
r e a s o n a b l e 
i n f e r e n c e s i n t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s 
f a v o r . I d . ' " 
Ex p a r t e Alabama Dep't o f Youth S e r v s . , 880 So. 2d a t 402-03 
( q u o t i n g S t . George v. P i n e l l a s Cnty., 285 F.3d 1334, 1337 
(11th C i r . 2002) (emphasis 
o m i t t e d ) ) . 
In Ex p a r t e Alabama Department o f Youth S e r v i c e s , 
t h i s 
C o u r t a d d r e s s e d , among o t h e r 
t h i n g s , whether t h e e x e c u t i v e 
d i r e c t o r o f t h e Department o f Youth 
S e r v i c e s 
("DYS"), J . 
W a l t e r 
Wood, 
J r . , c o u l d 
be 
l i a b l e 
under 
a 
t h e o r y 
o f 
s u p e r v i s o r y 
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r i n j u r i e s t o minor 
p l a i n t i f f s 
r e s u l t i n g 
from s e x u a l 
a s s a u l t s 
a l l e g e d l y committed by DYS 
employees w h i l e t h e minor p l a i n t i f f s were i n 
t h e c u s t o d y o f 
DYS. 
"The 
[minor] p l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e d a c l a i m 
a g a i n s t 
Wood 
under 
42 
U.S.C. 
§ 
1983 f o r d e l i b e r a t e 
i n d i f f e r e n c e t o t h e i r 
' r i g h t [ s ] t o p e r s o n a l 
s a f e t y , 
s e c u r i t y and p r i v a c y , g u a r a n t e e d by t h e F o u r t e e n t h 
Amendment' w h i l e Wood was 
' a c t i n g under 
c o l o r o f 
s t a t e law.' The [minor] 
p l a i n t i f f s 
a l l e g e d 
t h a t 
Wood 
' f a i l e d t o d e v e l o p , implement o r 
a d m i n i s t e r 
16 
1111316 
p r o c e d u r e s 
o r 
p o l i c i e s 
r e a s o n a b l y 
d e s i g n e d t o 
p r o v i d e 
p r o t e c t i o n f o r t h e minor 
P l a i n t i f f s 
from 
s e x u a l 
harassment and abuse'; 
f a i l e d 
'to p r e v e n t 
male employees o f DYS from 
s e x u a l l y a b u s i n g and 
h a r a s s i n g 
them'; 
f a i l e d 
'to i n v e s t i g a t e 
p r i o r 
c o m p l a i n t s ' 
a g a i n s t 
[ c e r t a i n e m p l o y e e s ] ; and f a i l e d 
'to 
p r o t e c t 
t h e P l a i n t i f f s 
from 
harm and from 
f u r t h e r harm a f t e r [Wood] r e c e i v e d 
n o t i c e o f t h e 
s e x u a l harassment and abuse and t h e p o t e n t i a l 
f o r 
s e x u a l harassment o f ' them." 
880 So. 2d a t 
397. 
Wood moved t o d i s m i s s t h e f e d e r a l c l a i m s a g a i n s t him 
i n 
h i s 
i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y "on t h e 
ground[] o f f e d e r a l q u a l i f i e d 
immunity." 
I d . A f t e r r e v i e w i n g t h e r e l e v a n t law, t h i s C o u r t 
c o n c l u d e d : 
"The 
[minor] 
p l a i n t i f f s ' 
c o m p l a i n t 
a l l e g e s 
Wood's 
v i o l a t i o n 
o f 
t h e i r 
c l e a r l y 
e s t a b l i s h e d 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o ' b o d i l y i n t e g r i t y ' p u r s u a n t 
t o t h e F o u r t e e n t h 
Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d 
S t a t e s 
C o n s t i t u t i o n . 
The 
[minor] 
p l a i n t i f f s ' 
c o m p l a i n t 
f u r t h e r 
a l l e g e s t h a t Wood 
f a i l e d 
'to p r o t e c t t h e 
p l a i n t i f f s from harm and from f u r t h e r harm a f t e r he 
r e c e i v e d n o t i c e o f t h e s e x u a l harassment and abuse 
and 
t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r s e x u a l 
harassment' 
... 
committed by DYS employees a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f s . 
T h e r e f o r e , Wood has 
n o t 
shown a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o 
a d i s m i s s a l o f t h e [minor] p l a i n t i f f s ' § 1983 c l a i m 
on t h e ground o f f e d e r a l q u a l i f i e d immunity." 
880 So. 2d a t 403 ( c i t a t i o n and emphasis 
o m i t t e d ) . 
Here, S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r , 
l i k e Wood, argued t h a t she was 
e n t i t l e d t o q u a l i f i e d immunity on t h e f e d e r a l c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t 
her i n 
h e r i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y . 
However, Haywood and H a l l ' s 
17 
1111316 
c o u n t e r c l a i m , 
l i k e t h e c o m p l a i n t i n Ex p a r t e Department o f  
Youth S e r v i c e s , 
a l l e g e d 
t h a t 
S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r ' s f a i l u r e t o 
a c t l e d 
t o a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e i r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s . 
They 
a l l e g e d , among o t h e r 
t h i n g s : 
"35. 
[ S h e r i f f ] A l e x a n d e r , a c t i n g under c o l o r o f 
s t a t e law w i t h i n t h e 
meaning p r e s c r i b e d by 42 U.S.C. 
§ 
1983, [was] d e l i b e r a t e l y 
i n d i f f e r e n t t o t h e 
P l a i n t i f f s ' s a f e t y i n t h a t [she] 
had knowledge 
t h a t 
H a l l and Haywood were b e i n g 
s u b j e c t e d t o 
s e x u a l 
a s s a u l t on an ongoing and c o n t i n u o u s b a s i s w h i l e i n 
the c u s t o d y o f [ S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r ] y e t 
d i d 
not t a k e 
a p p r o p r i a t e 
a c t i o n . 
[ S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r ] , 
d e s p i t e 
knowledge o f customs and p r a c t i c e s 
o f t h e C l a y 
County 
j a i l i n t h e e x p l o i t a t i o n o f i t s inmates and 
the 
o p p o r t u n i t y 
c r e a t e d 
t h e r e b y f o r 
abuse, d i d n o t 
t a k e a p p r o p r i a t e 
a c t i o n t o p r e v e n t such abuse and 
d i d t h e r e b y d e p r i v e t h e P l a i n t i f f s o f t h e i r r i g h t s 
a g a i n s t 
c r u e l and u n u s u a l punishment, 
i n v a s i o n o f 
t h e i r r i g h t t o p r i v a c y and b o d i l y i n t e g r i t y and due 
p r o c e s s 
r i g h t s 
under 
t h e 
F o u r t h , 
E i g h t h 
and 
F o u r t e e n t h Amendment t o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n 
o f t h e 
U n i t e d S t a t e s i n v i o l a t i o n o f 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. 
"  
"38. 
[ S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r ] 
[has] c o n s i s t e n t l y 
a c t e d 
w i t h 
d e l i b e r a t e 
i n d i f f e r e n c e t o t h e s a f e t y 
needs o f inmates i n 
t h e county 
j a i l , 
i n c l u d i n g H a l l 
and 
Haywood, by 
v i o l a t i n g 
c l e a r l y 
e s t a b l i s h e d 
s t a t u t o r y and/or c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s o f w h i c h a 
r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n would know and t h a t such v i o l a t i o n 
d i r e c t l y caused [Haywood and H a l l ] t o be s u b j e c t e d 
t o s e x u a l 
a s s a u l t and e x p l o i t a t i o n i n v i o l a t i o n o f 
t h e i r due p r o c e s s r i g h t s t o be f r e e from c r u e l and 
u n u s u a l punishment and u n l a w f u l i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y 
and b o d i l y i n t e g r i t y . " 
18 
1111316 
Thus, Haywood and 
H a l l , l i k e the minor p l a i n t i f f s i n Ex p a r t e  
Alabama Department of Youth S e r v i c e s , "[have] a l l e g e [ d ] 
the 
v i o l a t i o n of a c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t , " 
880 
So. 
2d 
a t 
402, 
and, 
t h e r e f o r e , 
S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r 
"has 
not 
shown a c l e a r 
l e g a l 
r i g h t 
t o 
a d i s m i s s a l 
of 
[Haywood's 
and 
H a l l ' s ] 
§ 1983 
c l a i m [ s ] 
on 
the 
ground of 
f e d e r a l 
q u a l i f i e d 
immunity." 880 
So. 
2d a t 
403. 
S i m i l a r l y , 
i n Ex p a r t e H a l e , 
6 So. 
3d 
452 
( A l a . 
2008), 
Emma Jean J e n k i n s , r e p r e s e n t i n g the e s t a t e of B e l i n d a Denise 
Hodge, a l l e g e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , 
t h a t S h e r i f f Mike H a l e ' s 
f a i l u r e t o a d e q u a t e l y t r a i n the 
s t a f f of the J e f f e r s o n 
County 
j a i l p r o x i m a t e l y caused v i o l a t i o n s 
of Hodge's 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 
r i g h t s . 
T h i s C o u r t 
s t a t e d : 
" J e n k i n s was 
r e q u i r e d t o p l e a d t h a t S h e r i f f 
H a l e ' s 
'improper 
"custom 
or 
p o l i c y 
... 
r e s u l t e d 
i n 
d e l i b e r a t e 
i n d i f f e r e n c e 
t o 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 
r i g h t s [ . ] " ' 
H a r t l e y 
[v. P a r n e l l ] , 193 
F.3d 
[1263,] 
1269 
[ ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) ] . 
In her c o m p l a i n t , J e n k i n s 
a l l e g e s t h a t ' [ S h e r i f f Hale] ... 
had p o l i c i e s and/or 
customs i n p l a c e t h a t caused m e d i c a l t r e a t m e n t t o 
be 
d e n i e d t o inmates of the County J a i l ' 
and 
t h a t 
'the 
f a i l u r e 
of 
[ S h e r i f f 
Hale] 
... 
t o 
c o r r e c t 
t h e s e 
p o l i c i e s 
and/or 
customs 
... 
e n a b l e d 
S h e r i f f ' s 
D e p u t i e s , j a i l p e r s o n n e l and/or m e d i c a l p e r s o n n e l t o 
d e p r i v e Hodge ... 
of 
[her] 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 
r i g h t s . ' 
J e n k i n s ' s b r i e f , 
E x h i b i t 
B. 
J e n k i n s ' s 
' c o m p l a i n t 
a l l e g e [ s ] 
the 
v i o l a t i o n 
of 
a 
c l e a r l y 
e s t a b l i s h e d 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 
r i g h t . ' 
Ex p a r t e Alabama Department  
of Youth S e r v i c e s , 880 
So. 
2d a t 402. 
T h e r e f o r e , 
a t 
19 
1111316 
t h i s s t a g e o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , S h e r i f f Hale i s 
n o t 
e n t i t l e d t o a d i s m i s s a l o f J e n k i n s ' s 
§ 1983 c l a i m 
a g a i n s t him based on q u a l i f i e d immunity and, t h u s , 
i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o mandamus r e l i e f on t h i s i s s u e . " 
Ex p a r t e H a l e , 6 So. 3d a t 462-63. 
Haywood and H a l l , 
l i k e J e n k i n s , have a l l e g e d t h a t 
" [ S h e r i f f 
A l e x a n d e r ] , 
a c t i n g 
w i t h 
d e l i b e r a t e 
i n d i f f e r e n c e , among o t h e r t h i n g s , f a i l e d t o d e v e l o p 
and implement adequate p o l i c i e s and p r o c e d u r e s and 
f a i l e d t o t r a i n p e r s o n n e l under [her] s u p e r v i s i o n , 
w i t h t h e f o r e s e e a b l e 
r e s u l t t h a t inmates such as 
H a l l and Haywood would be e x p l o i t e d and abused f o r 
s e x u a l 
g r a t i f i c a t i o n . " 
Haywood and H a l l have a l s o a l l e g e d t h a t 
" [ t ] h e 
s e x u a l 
abuse, e m o t i o n a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l harm, p a i n and s u f f e r i n g 
i n f l i c t e d upon Haywood and [ H a l l ] i s d i r e c t l y a t t r i b u t a b l e t o 
the customs and/or p o l i c i e s o f [ S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r ] " and t h a t 
S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r 
" f a i l e d t o d e v e l o p and implement adequate 
p o l i c i e s 
and p r o c e d u r e s f o r 
t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f and s a f e t y o f 
inmates 
e n t r u s t e d 
i n t o 
[her] c u s t o d y 
such as t o 
p r o t e c t inmates from t h e abuse a l l e g e d h e r e i n and 
f a i l e d 
t o 
t r a i n 
p e r s o n n e l 
r e g a r d i n g 
the p r o p e r 
h a n d l i n g o f inmates and the r e q u i r e m e n t o f r e p o r t i n g 
m i s c o n d u c t by c o r r e c t i o n o f f i c e r s 
t h a t i m p a c t s o r 
j e o p a r d i z e s 
inmate 
s a f e t y . 
These 
l o n g s t a n d i n g 
s y s t e m a t i c 
f a i l u r e s 
c o n s t i t u t e 
p o l i c i e s 
and/or 
customs 
o f 
[ S h e r i f f 
A l e x a n d e r ] 
t h a t 
made i t 
f o r e s e e a b l e 
t h a t 
s e x u a l 
e x p l o i t a t i o n and abuse o f 
H a l l 
and Haywood 
would 
o c c u r 
a t t h e hands o f 
[ C o t n e y ] , 
t h e r e b y 
d e p r i v i n g 
H a l l and Haywood o f 
t h e i r r i g h t s a g a i n s t 
c r u e l and u n u s u a l punishment, 
i n v a s i o n 
o f 
t h e i r 
r i g h t t o p r i v a c y 
and 
b o d i l y 
20 
1111316 
i n t e g r i t y and due p r o c e s s 
r i g h t s under the 
F o u r t h , 
E i g h t h 
and 
F o u r t e e n t h 
Amendment[s] 
t o 
the 
C o n s t i t u t i o n of the U n i t e d S t a t e s i n v i o l a t i o n of 42 
U.S.C. § 1983." 
V i e w i n g 
the 
a l l e g a t i o n s 
i n 
the 
c o u n t e r c l a i m 
"most 
s t r o n g l y i n [Haywood's and H a l l ' s ] f a v o r , " Nance, 622 So. 
2d 
a t 299, we c o n c l u d e 
t h a t the c o u n t e r c l a i m i n t h i s case does, 
i n 
f a c t , a l l e g e v i o l a t i o n s of the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s 
s e t 
f o r t h i n the F o u r t h , E i g h t h , and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments of the 
U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , " a t t h i s s t a g e of the 
p r o c e e d i n g s , 
S h e r i f f 
[Alexander] 
i s 
not 
e n t i t l e d 
t o 
a 
d i s m i s s a l 
of 
[the] 
§ 1983 
c l a i m [ s ] a g a i n s t 
[her] based 
on 
q u a l i f i e d immunity." 
Ex p a r t e H a l e , 6 So. 3d a t 
463. 
F i n a l l y , 
Haywood 
and 
H a l l 
argue 
t h a t 
t h e y 
were 
not 
r e q u i r e d t o comply w i t h any h e i g h t e n e d p l e a d i n g s t a n d a r d s 
f o r 
c l a i m s made p u r s u a n t 
t o § 1983. 
C i t i n g GJR I n v e s t m e n t s , 
I n c . 
 
v. County of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359 
(11th C i r . 1998), S h e r i f f 
A l e x a n d e r argued t h a t " [ t ] h e C o u n t e r c l a i m a n t s ' 
c l a i m s under § 
1983 are a l s o due t o be d i s m i s s e d as t h o s e c l a i m s f a i l t o meet 
the 
h e i g h t e n e d 
p l e a d i n g 
s t a n d a r d 
r e q u i r e d 
f o r 
p r o p e r l y 
p l e a d i n g such c l a i m s . " 
However, as Haywood and H a l l n o t e , 
t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d i n 
Ex p a r t e Hale t h a t the 
C o u r t 
21 
1111316 
"'"may r e l y on a d e c i s i o n of any f e d e r a l c o u r t , but 
i t 
i s bound by the d e c i s i o n s of the U n i t e d 
S t a t e s 
Supreme C o u r t . " ' 
Because we 
a r e not bound by 
the 
d e c i s i o n s 
of 
the 
E l e v e n t h 
C i r c u i t 
and 
because 
S h e r i f f 
Hale 
has 
not 
asked 
us 
t o 
adopt 
the 
' h e i g h t e n e d 
p l e a d i n g 
s t a n d a r d ' 
a p p l i e d 
by 
the 
E l e v e n t h 
C i r c u i t , 
we 
do 
not 
a d d r e s s whether 
t h i s 
s t a n d a r d i s a p p l i c a b l e under Alabama law, nor do 
we 
a p p l y such a h e i g h t e n e d 
p l e a d i n g s t a n d a r d 
i n 
t h i s 
c a s e . " 
6 So. 
3d a t 458 
n.5 
( q u o t i n g Weems v. 
J e f f e r s o n - P i l o t 
L i f e 
 
I n s . 
Co., 
663 So. 2d 905, 
913 
( A l a . 1995), q u o t i n g i n t u r n Ex  
p a r t e Gurganus, 603 So. 2d 903, 
908 
( A l a . 1992) 
(Shores, J . , 
c o n c u r r i n g s p e c i a l l y ) 
(emphasis o m i t t e d ) ) . 
S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r 
has not 
f i l e d a b r i e f w i t h t h i s 
C o u r t 
and 
has 
thus 
not asked t h i s 
C o u r t 
t o adopt any 
h e i g h t e n e d 
p l e a d i n g s t a n d a r d s 
f o r § 1983 
c l a i m s . 
T h e r e f o r e , we do 
not 
a p p l y any such s t a n d a r d i n t h i s case, and S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r i s 
not 
e n t i t l e d 
t o have the 
§ 1983 
c l a i m s 
d i s m i s s e d 
on 
t h a t 
b a s i s . 
C o n c l u s i o n 
Haywood and H a l l have not d e m o n s t r a t e d any e r r o r i n the 
c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o d i s m i s s the f e d e r a l c l a i m s a g a i n s t 
S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r 
i n her 
o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y or the 
s t a t e - l a w 
c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t 
her 
i n 
b o t h 
her 
o f f i c i a l 
and 
i n d i v i d u a l 
c a p a c i t i e s . 
T h e r e f o r e , 
the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t ' s 
judgment 
i s 
22 
1111316 
a f f i r m e d i n s o f a r as i t 
d i s m i s s e d those c l a i m s . 
However, f o r 
the r e a s o n s s e t f o r t h i n t h i s o p i n i o n , 
a t t h i s s t a g e o f 
t h e 
p r o c e e d i n g s 
S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r i s 
n o t e n t i t l e d t o a d i s m i s s a l 
of t h e f e d e r a l c l a i m s a g a i n s t h e r i n 
h e r i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y .
3 
T h e r e f o r e , we r e v e r s e t h e c i r c u i t 
c o u r t ' s judgment i n t h a t 
r e g a r d and remand t h e case f o r 
f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s 
c o n s i s t e n t 
w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n . 
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. 
Moore, C.J., 
and B o l i n , Murdock, and Main, J J . , 
c o n c u r . 
3 T h i s o p i n i o n does n o t a d d r e s s t h e m e r i t s o f t h e c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t S h e r i f f A l e x a n d e r . 
Nor does " [ o ] u r o p i n i o n i n t h i s 
case ... a d d r e s s any defense o t h e r than [ S h e r i f f 
A l e x a n d e r ' s ] 
c l a i m s o f immunity ... [or] f o r e c l o s e a r e a s s e r t i o n o f t h e 
immunity c l a i m s by way o f a m o t i o n f o r 
summary judgment a f t e r 
a p p r o p r i a t e 
d i s c o v e r y . " 
Ex p a r t e Alabama Dep't o f Youth  
S e r v s . , 880 So. 2d a t 405. 
23