The Tinneys contend that application of the Parratt rule in cases like this one amounts to a requirement that a Section 1983 plaintiff seeking to redress a violation of procedural due process must exhaust his or her state remedies before suing in federal court. However, the Tinneys' contention lacks merit. As in McKinney, Patsy is inapplicable here. Under Parratt and Hudson, the Tinneys have failed to state a valid procedural due process claim because they have not alleged that Alabama law provided them with an inadequate post- deprivation remedy. Thus, the district court erred by denying summary judgment.
Appellants maintain that they are entitled to state sovereign immunity under Alabama law.
Griesel reasoned that sovereign immunity in Georgia is immunity from suit, not merely a defense from liability. This same rationale applies equally to a claim of sovereign immunity under Alabama law. Alabama grants sovereign immunity to its state executive officers pursuant to Article I, Section 14 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901. Under Alabama law, both sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are considered executive officers of the state, immune from suit under Section 14. Like Georgia, then, Alabama intended for its state officers to be immune from suit.