Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-4_12-cv-02926/USCOURTS-alnd-4_12-cv-02926-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

MIDDLE DIVISION

JARROD BENEFIELD )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CV 4:12-2926-RBP

 )

CITY OF ALBERTVILLE, ALABAMA, )

a municipal corporation )

 )

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This cause comes before the court to be heard on the Motion to Dismiss filed by the

defendant City of Albertville (“defendant”) on October 31, 2012. This court has previously

dismissed all claims against all defendants except City of Albertville. The claims against all the 1

individual defendants were dismissed based on qualified immunity and/or lack of alleged

plausible claims. The claim(s) against Walker were also dismissed based upon judicial immunity.

The official capacity claims against individuals were dismissed because they are the same as

being against City of Albertville. 

Facts

This case arises out of the “Alternative Resolution Plea Agreement” entered into on

October 25, 2010 by and between the City of Albertville, Alabama and the plaintiff. That

agreement was also signed by one of the plaintiff’s present attorneys, Abbey Herrin. The plaintiff

acknowledges that no force was applied to him to cause him to enter into the agreement. His

See Doc. 30. 1

1

FILED

 2013 Jan-02 AM 08:54

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 4:12-cv-02926-RBP Document 31 Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 7
attorney states that he chose to enter into the agreement because he just wished to avoid a DUI

conviction.

The agreement provides that if the plaintiff meets certain specified conditions the

prosecution for DUI will be dismissed. The only condition which the plaintiff objects to is the

provision which states that “[b]efore sentencing, the Defendant must pay Restitution in the

amount of $500 to the City of Albertville.” Plaintiff claims that this provision deprives him

“[a]nd those similarly situated of their rights and immunities afforded to them by the Eighth and

Fourteenth Amendments and the Alabama Constitution in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . . . .

Specifically, Defendants have imposed restitution as fully set forth herein without the benefit of a

restitution hearing as required by Alabama statute.” After this action was filed, the plaintiff paid 2

the $500 to the City of Albertville. At least one condition has not been met.3

Discussion

The defendant makes a number of arguments as to why this action should be dismissed.

These include:

(1) The action is barred by the law established in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1921)

because the plaintiff has not yet exhausted his state remedies and the criminal action is still

pending. Citing 31 Foster Children v. Bush, 329 F. 3d 1255, 1274, the defendant states that there

is an ongoing state judicial proceeding because there has been no sentencing hearing; important

state interests are implicated; and there is an adequate opportunity in the proceedings to raise

Noticeably absent is any reference to the Fifth Amendment. 2

See paragraph 4C of the agreement. The case is set for sentencing or other action on February 12, 2013. 3

2

Case 4:12-cv-02926-RBP Document 31 Filed 01/02/13 Page 2 of 7
constitutional challenges.4

(2) Defendant also argues that the alleged state law claims are not actionable under

Alabama law.5

Conclusions of Court 

This court agrees that this action is barred by the Younger v. Harris doctrine. In addition

the court notes that the plaintiff chose to enter into the agreement. See and compare Chandler v.

Secretary of Florida Dept. Of Transportation, 695 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2012), a Fourth

Amendment case. Further, it is likely that the plaintiff waived any constitutional claim, Finch v.

Vaughn, 67 F. 3d 909, 914 (11th Cir. 1995). Also, the state interest is significantly implicated by

the claims based on the Alabama Constitution and an Alabama statute. Further, if looked upon as

a fine pursuant to the Eighth Amendment, as the plaintiff purports to do, this court cannot

conclude that $500, or even $2000, is an excessive fine or cruel and unusual punishment for a

DUI offense. Further, the plaintiff bases his purported class action on Rule 23 of the Alabama

Rules of Civil Procedure.6

Since this case is so muddled, the court attaches hereto an Appendix with statements

regarding other U.S. Supreme Court holdings which may have application if the parties wish to

consider them in the event of an appeal. The plaintiff has argued, “[a]s shown from the clear

language of the Plea Agreement, this case is over.” (Doc. 24, p. 4). If plaintiff’s point is that the

Citing Maharaj v. Secretary for Dept. Of Corrections, 307 F. 3d 1345 (11th Cir. 2002), defendant also 4

argues that the claim(s) are not ripe. 

Defendant cites Ala. Code § 11-47-190. 

5

 If the plaintiff has no claim, he cannot represent others. 

6

3

Case 4:12-cv-02926-RBP Document 31 Filed 01/02/13 Page 3 of 7
municipal court finally adjudicated the $500 restitution requirement when the Plea Agreement

was signed, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine may come into play. Also see the Burford and Pullman

doctrine discussions.

The court will dismiss the claims against the only remaining defendant.7

This the 2 day of January, 2013. nd

 

 ROBERT B. PROPST

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

While this court does not conclude that it has present federal jurisdiction of this case, it does not endorse

7

the money oriented procedure at issue here. That procedure should likely be examined by state courts or, in the

event of an appeal of this case, the Eleventh Circuit if it decides that this court had jurisdiction.

4

Case 4:12-cv-02926-RBP Document 31 Filed 01/02/13 Page 4 of 7
APPENDIX

Rooker-Feldman

The Supreme Court is vested with authority, through 28 U.S.C. § 1257, to review state

court final judgments if they involve an issue of federal law. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic

Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 292 (2005). However, other federal courts do not have this authority.

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is “a jurisdictional rule that precludes the lower federal courts

from reviewing state court judgments.” Alvarez v. Attorney General for Fla., 679 F. 3d 1257,

1262 (11th Cir. 2012). This rule was developed through the two Supreme Court cases of Rooker

v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). Recent cases have emphasized the narrow scope of the RookerFeldman doctrine, creating strict requirements for its application. See Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at

284; Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 464 (2006). For Rooker-Feldman to preclude federal

jurisdiction, 

1) the federal case must be brought by the loser of the state court action; 

2) the loser must be complaining about the judgment of the state court; 

3) the state court judgment must have been rendered before the federal action began; and 

4) the loser must be requesting the federal court to review and reject the state court

judgment. See Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 284. 

The Eleventh Circuit has interpreted the narrow scope of the doctrine to bar federal

jurisdiction:

where the issue before the federal court was “inextricably intertwined” with the state

court judgment so that (1) the success of the federal claim would “effectively nullify”

the state court judgment, or that (2) the federal claim would succeed “only to the

extent that the state court wrongly decided the issues.”

5

Case 4:12-cv-02926-RBP Document 31 Filed 01/02/13 Page 5 of 7
Alvarez, 679 F. 3d at 1262-1263 (quoting Casale v. Tillman, 558 F. 3d 1258, 1260 (11th Cir.

2009)). In Alvaraz v. Attorney General for Florida, the Eleventh Circuit found the plaintiff’s

claim to be barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 679 F. 3d at 1263. Alvarez was seeking

review and the ultimate rejection of a state court judgment, regarding a § 1983 claim challenging

Florida’s failure to produce evidence for DNA tests. Id. The court drew a distinction between

Alvarez’s challenge to the state court’s application of Florida’s DNA access statutes to his case

and that of the challenge set forth in Skinner v. Switzer, 131 U.S. 1289 (2011). In Skinner, the

plaintiff was protesting Texas’ DNA access statute, saying it was unconstitutionally applied. Id.

at 1298. While Alvarez was seeking review of the state-court decision itself, Skinner was

challenging the overall constitutionality of the statute. While “a state-court decision is not

reviewable by lower federal courts, . . . a statute or rule governing the decision may be

challenged in a federal action.” Id. 

In the case at hand, Benefield is not challenging the constitutionality of a state statute.

Plaintiff is alleging the $500 restitution judgment against him violates state law as well as federal

law. While Plaintiff alludes to an unconstitutional ‘policy,’ the complaint is challenging an

alleged judgment against him, not a state statute.

Burford and Pullman

This court also calls attention to the Burford and Pullman doctrines. Under the Burford

doctrine, it is appropriate for a federal court to abstain when 1) there are difficult questions of

state law presented that bear on policy problems of substantial public import, or 2) federal review

of a state question would be disruptive of state efforts to establish a coherent policy with respect

to a matter of substantial public concern. See Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 317 (1943).

6

Case 4:12-cv-02926-RBP Document 31 Filed 01/02/13 Page 6 of 7
While the federal court may have jurisdiction over this proceeding, “it may, in its sound

discretion, . . . refuse to enforce or protect legal rights . . . with proper regard for the rightful

independence of state governments in carrying out their domestic policy.” Id. at 317-318.

Plaintiff alleges that the defendant’s policy of charging a set restitution amount violates the

Alabama law regarding the determination of restitution. The question of whether this type of

restitution implementation is proper under Alabama law both bears on policy of substantial

public import as well as state efforts to establish a coherent policy on restitution.

Also see Railroad Commission of Tex. v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941). The

Eleventh Circuit finds there to be two requirements for a Pullman abstention: “(1) an unsettled

question of state law and (2) that the question be dispositive of the case and would avoid, or

substantially modify, the constitutional question.” Duke v. James, 713 F.2d 1506, 1510-1511

(11th Cir. 1983). The court recognizes certain factors identified by case law as instructive for

determining whether to abstain under Pullman:

Factors arguing against abstention include delay, cost, doubt as to the adequacy of

state procedures for having the state law question resolved, the existence of factual

disputes, and the fact that the case has already been in litigation for a long time.

Factors which might favor abstention include the availability of “easy and ample

means” for determining the state law question, the existence of a pending state court

action that may resolve the issue, or the availability of a certification procedure,

whereby the federal court can secure an expeditious answer.

Id.

This court does not directly base its rulings on any of the cases cited in this APPENDIX. 

7

Case 4:12-cv-02926-RBP Document 31 Filed 01/02/13 Page 7 of 7