Title: Garrett v. Gilley
Citation: 488 So. 2d 1360
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: April 25, 1986

488 So. 2d 1360 (1986)
Charles GARRETT
v.
Lt. Mike GILLEY, Roger Jones, Sgt. Leroy Woods, Jerry Hunt, and Donald Valenza.
85-388.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
April 25, 1986.
Charles Garrett, pro se.
Richard H. Ramsey III, William H. Filmore, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Dothan, for appellee Roger Jones.
HOUSTON, Justice.
Charles Garrett filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Houston County against five defendants, seeking recovery of a sum of money and damages for its wrongful seizure and detention. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), Ala.R. *1361 Civ.P., for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Garrett appeals. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.
Garrett's complaint reads as follows:
In dismissing the complaint, the trial court entered the following order:
The plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The thrust of his argument is that the trial court improperly took judicial notice of a prior criminal prosecution which also involved some of the same facts *1362 which form the basis of his complaint in this case. We agree.
The law regarding when a circuit court may take judicial notice of a prior judicial proceeding was stated in Butler v. Olshan, 280 Ala. 181, 191 So. 2d 7 (1966):
See also C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 484.02(2) (3d ed. 1977); Hales v. Scott, 473 So. 2d 1028 (Ala.1985).
Motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) should be granted sparingly, and such a dismissal is proper only when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim which would entitle him or her to relief. Committee Comments to Rule 8, Ala.R. Civ.P; Roberts v. Meeks, 397 So. 2d 111 (Ala.1981).
In the present case, the plaintiff made no reference in his complaint to a prior criminal proceeding or judgment of conviction. Although the facts as summarized in the complaint may have been collaterally involved in a prior criminal proceeding of which the learned trial judge apparently had personal knowledge, these facts are not sufficient to satisfy the requirement that there be a reference to a prior "proceeding" or "judgment." We note that the defendants did not make any reference to a prior criminal proceeding in their motion to dismiss. The plaintiff's complaint and the defendants' motion to dismiss were the only materials considered by the trial court in makings its determination.
The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, ALMON and BEATTY, JJ., concur.