1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CARI D. SEARCY and KIMBERLY 

MCKEAND, individually and as 

parent and next friend of K.S., a 

minor,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 Plaintiffs,

vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0208-CG-N

LUTHER STRANGE, in his capacity 

as Attorney General for the State of 

Alabama,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs’ motion for contempt and request 

for immediate relief. (Doc. 71). Plaintiffs report that “the Honorable Don Davis has 

failed to comply with this Court’s January 23, 2015 Order.” According to the 

motion:

On this date, at 10:10 a.m. CST, Honorable Don Davis, Probate Judge 

in Mobile County, Alabama, had not opened the marriage license 

division of the Mobile County Probate Court. The Honorable Don 

Davis has not given a reason why the marriage license division is 

closed on this particular day, and he has not stated as to when the 

office will reopen.

(Doc. 71, p. 1-2). Plaintiffs request that this court hold Davis in contempt, to order 

law enforcement to open the marriage license division of Mobile County Probate 

Court, and to impose sanctions.

After reviewing the Plaintiffs’ motion, the court finds that Plaintiffs have not 

shown that Davis has failed to comply with this court’s order. On January 23, 2015, 

Case 1:14-cv-00208-CG-N Document 72 Filed 02/09/15 Page 1 of 3
2

this court declared that ALA. CONST. ART. I, § 36.03 (2006) and ALA. CODE 1975 § 30-

1-19 are unconstitutional and enjoined defendant Luther Strange, in his capacity as 

Attorney General for the State of Alabama, from enforcing those laws. (Doc. 54).

Upon motion by the Plaintiffs, this court further clarified the January 23, 2015 

order stating that:

... [A] clerk who chooses not to follow the ruling should take note: the 

governing statutes and rules of procedure allow individuals to 

intervene as plaintiffs in pending actions, allow certification of plaintiff 

and defendant classes, allow issuance of successive preliminary 

injunctions, and allow successful plaintiffs to recover costs and 

attorney’s fees. ... The preliminary injunction now in effect thus does 

not require the Clerk to issue licenses to other applicants. But as set 

out in the order that announced issuance of the preliminary injunction, 

the Constitution requires the Clerk to issue such licenses. As in any 

other instance involving parties not now before the court, the Clerk’s 

obligation to follow the law arises from sources other than the 

preliminary injunction.

(Doc. 65, p. 3 quoting Brenner v. Scott, 2015 WL 44260 at *1 (N.D. Fla. Jan 1, 

2015)). Probate Judge Don Davis is not a party in this case1 and the Order of 

January 23, 2015, did not directly order Davis to do anything. Judge Davis’s

obligation to follow the Constitution does not arise from this court’s Order. The 

Clarification Order noted that actions against Judge Davis or others who fail to

follow the Constitution could be initiated by persons who are harmed by their 

failure to follow the law. However, no such action is before the Court at this time. 

Plaintiffs have also offered no affidavit or other evidence to show that they 

have been prevented from applying for the adoption or that their adoption 

application was wrongfully denied after this court’s January 23, 2015, Order. 

 1 Judge Davis was originally named as a defendant, but by stipulation of the parties 

(Doc. 29) was dismissed from the case.

Case 1:14-cv-00208-CG-N Document 72 Filed 02/09/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Nothing in Plaintiffs’ motion would compel this court to order law enforcement to 

open the marriage license division of Mobile County Probate Court or impose 

sanctions. Plaintiffs have offered no authority by which this court can hold Davis in 

contempt or order any of the relief sought by Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ 

motion for contempt and immediate relief (Doc. 71), is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of February, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00208-CG-N Document 72 Filed 02/09/15 Page 3 of 3