Opinion ID: 1100590
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Johnson and Marshall

Text: Johnson and Marshall contend that they are entitled to State-agent immunity for Sanders's claims seeking monetary damages against them in their individual capacities. Sanders alleges that Johnson and Marshall violated DMHMR policy because they were present when Holmes assaulted Green, but they failed to intervene on Green's behalf. Johnson and Marshall assert that they are entitled to State-agent immunity because, they say, their actions fall within a category of immune conduct. Johnson and Marshall argue that they are entitled to State-agent immunity because in not intervening in the incident involving Holmes and Green they were merely discharging the duties imposed upon them. Johnson and Marshall state both in the petition for the writ of mandamus and in the summary-judgment motion that in not intervening they were `discharging duties imposed on a department or agency by statute, rule, or regulation, insofar as the statute, rule, or regulation prescribes the manner for performing the duties and the State agent performs the duties in that manner; or `... exercising judgment in the discharge of duties imposed by statute, rule, or regulation in releasing prisoners, counseling or releasing persons of unsound mind, or educating students.' Ex parte Butts, 775 So.2d at 178 (quoting Cranman, 792 So.2d at 405). In neither document do Johnson and Marshall support this quotation or their conclusory statements with specific facts regarding their failure to become involved in Holmes's assault of Green nor do they demonstrate that in refusing to interfere they were adhering to a specific rule or regulation applicable to the incident involving Holmes and Green. Johnson and Marshall contend in the summary-judgment motion and in the petition for the writ of mandamus that their conduct was a method of resolving competing caretaker interests. In support of this contention, they present deposition testimony by former commissioner Sawyer that policies and procedures ... speak to the individual nature or the individuality of the situation. However, Sawyer's testimony does not explain what those competing caretaker interests were and why Johnson and Marshall resolved those competing interests in favor of noninterference. Johnson and Marshall also attach deposition testimony from former Tarwater director Johnston stating that although DMHMR policy dictates that Johnson and Marshall should have intervened on Green's behalf, there may have been extenuating circumstances at that moment in time that prevented their following to the letter of the law the policy on physical assistance. Johnston does not point to any rule or regulation that allows Johnson and Marshall to exercise such discretion. Nor does Johnston's deposition testimony explain what extenuating circumstances would justify Johnson and Marshall's nonintervention, and Johnson and Marshall do not provide details pertaining to extenuating circumstances. We held in Ex parte Wood that, when a defendant asserting State-agent immunity states in conclusory terms that his duties required him to exercise his judgment and discretion[,] ... yet fail[s] to state his involvement or his adherence to a rule or regulation governing the exercise of his duties, in the actions underlying the claims asserted against him, there was insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the defendant was entitled to State-agent immunity. 852 So.2d at 711-12. Similarly, in this case, Johnson and Marshall failed to carry their burden of establishing that their conduct in not intervening in Holmes's assault on Green fell within the ambit of State-agent immunity. Johnson and Marshall do not show that their actions fall within the performance of a function that clearly entitles them to State-agent immunity. Therefore, they are not entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to enter a summary judgment in their favor on Sanders's claims for monetary damages against them in their individual capacities.