Lorenzo Watkins v. Billy Mitchem et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/07/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2090005 Lorenzo Watkins v. B i l l y Mitchem e t a l . Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CV-09-970) Court MOORE, J u d g e . Lorenzo Watkins appeals of defendants Lieutenant Warden B i l l y Darwin Halbrooks; from a judgment e n t e r e d i n favor Mitchem; Wallace; Captain Lloyd and t h e Alabama Department o f 2090005 C o r r e c t i o n s ( h e r e i n a f t e r s o m e t i m e s c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d t o as "the defendants"). We a f f i r m i n p a r t and Procedural On June protective 19, 2009, custody that time, f i l e d reverse i n part. Background Watkins, at the Limestone who was an inmate Correctional Facility a c o m p l a i n t i n t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' a c t s and o m i s s i o n s had his constitutional rights. On June granting 30, Watkins violated relief he 1 2009, the permission trial to court file his entered an complaint order without f e e and o r d e r i n g t h e D e p a r t m e n t C o r r e c t i o n s to w i t h h o l d a d e s i g n a t e d p o r t i o n of the i n Watkins's fee. The Watkins's p r i s o n money a c c o u n t u n t i l he had p a i d t h e trial also trial. i m m e d i a t e payment o f a f i l i n g of at Court, Watkins sought i n j u n c t i v e as w e l l as m o n e t a r y damages a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s ; requested a jury in court also ordered the defendants to funds filing answer c o m p l a i n t w i t h i n 30 d a y s and s t a t e d : " T h i s m a t t e r i s ORDERED s e t on A u g u s t 25, 2009." I t i s u n c l e a r whether Watkins i n t e n d e d to s t a t e any claims a g a i n s t the defendants i n t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s . 1 2 2090005 On A u g u s t 24, 2009, t h e d e f e n d a n t s c o l l e c t i v e l y f i l e d answer t o W a t k i n s ' s c o m p l a i n t , g e n e r a l l y d e n y i n g t h a t an Watkins h a d b e e n d e p r i v e d o f h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s as a l l e g e d i n the complaint. that The d e f e n d a n t s a s s e r t e d , t h e y were e n t i t l e d immunity among o t h e r t h i n g s , t o s o v e r e i g n immunity and qualified a n d t h a t t h e c o m p l a i n t f a i l e d t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon w h i c h r e l i e f c o u l d be g r a n t e d . The d e f e n d a n t s a l s o moved f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . On A u g u s t 25, 2009, t h e day a f t e r t h e i r answer, t h e t r i a l been previously appeared set. the defendants filed c o u r t conducted the h e a r i n g t h a t had The defendants, through counsel, a t t h e h e a r i n g ; W a t k i n s , h o w e v e r , was n o t p r e s e n t . 2 On S e p t e m b e r 11, 2009, t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e m a t t e r reset for Monday, electronically October entered into 5, the and that order was the S t a t e J u d i c i a l I n f o r m a t i o n S y s t e m on S e p t e m b e r 14, 2009. 2009, t h e t r i a l 2009; However, a l s o on S e p t e m b e r 14, c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment, stating: " T H I S CAUSE c o m i n g b e f o r e t h e C o u r t f o r t r i a l on P l a i n t i f f ' s C o m p l a i n t and D e f e n d a n t s ' A n s w e r , a f t e r r e v i e w i n g same, t h e C o u r t f i n d s that On S e p t e m b e r 2, 2009, W a t k i n s f i l e d a " R e s p o n s e D e f e n d a n t s ' A n s w e r . " As e x p l a i n e d i n more d e t a i l b e l o w , need n o t c o n s i d e r W a t k i n s ' s r e s p o n s e . 2 3 to we 2090005 j u d g m e n t i n t h i s c a u s e i s due t o be e n t e r e d i n f a v o r o f t h e D e f e n d a n t s . T h e r e f o r e , i t i s h e r e b y ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED t h a t f i n a l j u d g m e n t be e n t e r e d i n t h i s c a u s e a g a i n s t t h e P l a i n t i f f and i n f a v o r o f t h e D e f e n d a n t s , and i t i s f u r t h e r o r d e r e d t h a t t h i s c a s e be DISMISSED, w i t h p r e j u d i c e . " C o s t s , i n t h e amount o f $ 2 0 1 . 0 0 , a r e taxed a g a i n s t t h e P l a i n t i f f i n t h e amount o f t w e n t y - f i v e ( 2 5 % ) p e r a v a i l a b l e sums o f h i s [ p r i s o n m o n e y ] account." On September 25, 2009, Watkins filed his notice of appeal. The Pleadings Reading Watkins's complaint t o him, see C i v . App. 2008, a he received a a a 2d 1254, favorable 1255-56 officer, behavioral "disciplinary infractions and alleged that, citation an is i s given i n m a t e t o due further a l l e g e d that, despite having behavioral citation, he given for (Ala. alleged formerly pursuant for to less c a r r i e s no r i g h t t o due citation" entitles citation" a s s e r t e d t h a t he had d i s c i p l i n a r y i n f r a c t i o n s and while So. "behavioral W a t k i n s , who corrections policy, 710 l i g h t most 2 0 0 7 ) , W a t k i n s a l l e g e s t h a t , i n November o r December misconduct. as H a r d e n v. R i t t e r , i n the was process. received a less punished 4 f o r more by served prison serious process, serious Watkins serious placement in 2090005 a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s e g r e g a t i o n f o r s i x months and b y t h e of h i s p r i v i l e g e s . Watkins c l a i m e d t h a t he was removal denied due p r o c e s s t o w h i c h he was e n t i t l e d b e f o r e r e c e i v i n g a p u n i s h m e n t of that severity. Watkins Lieutenant Halbrooks also alleged and C a p t a i n W a l l a c e t h a t he of those b u t t h a t t h e y f a i l e d t o t a k e any c o r r e c t i v e Watkins policy also alleged violations action. t h a t Warden M i t c h e m had of documenting a l l a l l e g e d notified adopted i n f r a c t i o n s by inmates p r o t e c t i v e c u s t o d y as " b e h a v i o r a l c i t a t i o n s , " t o w h i c h no a in due- p r o c e s s r i g h t s a t t a c h e d , r e g a r d l e s s of the punishment imposed for such infractions. Watkins alleged t h a t the a c t s and o m i s s i o n s h a d d e p r i v e d h i m o f due protection of the law, his u n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t , and own right his right t o be defendants' p r o c e s s and free to o f f e r of equal cruel and t e s t i m o n y on h i s behalf. Watkins Limestone attached Correctional allegations protective his segregation custody Watkins complaint Facility regarding administrative example, to charged attached the documents t h a t tended imposition as punishment the support to from his of for extended inmates in with a behavioral citation. For to the his 5 complaint a copy of 2090005 December 2008 "behavioral r e s u l t of i n s u b o r d i n a t e officer "due inmate's 2008. Watkins a l s o attached by "Mrs. him, letter was moved from Segreg. No The complaint. other in t h i n g s , t h a t no entitled to "No r e c l a s s needed." In t h e i r punishing 15, when Watkins sovereign filed increase he and would receive the bottom you custody] to letter addressed needed, reclass time." a copy of a 2009, Across [protective defendants a indicated that status, to h i s complaint hearing." handwritten: P.C. as f o r an e x t e n d e d p e r i o d o f inquiring "reclass[ification] received That c i t a t i o n dated February Harris," had [protective-custody] [administrative segregation] written he s t a t e m e n t s he a l l e g e d l y had made t o an on November 25, to citation" to a of that were only permanent Admin. 3 a joint answer, the answer to defendants asserted, c o n s t i t u t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n s had f o r h i s misconduct immunity Watkins's and and qualified that among occurred they immunity; were the d e f e n d a n t s a l s o a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e y were e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a matter of 3 law. Considering only Watkins's a l l e g a t i o n s The author of t h a t w r i t i n g i s not 6 indicated. 2090005 and the defendants' defenses, the t r i a l court entered a judgment i n f a v o r o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s . Analysis On a p p e a l , W a t k i n s c o n t e n d s , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e record before the t r i a l c o u r t was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e judgment e n t e r e d i n f a v o r o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s . the trial Watkins's court indicated complaint that i t was and t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' relying answer. consider only the f a c t s a l l e g e d i n Watkins's defenses asserted i n the defendants' I n i t s judgment, 4 on only Thus, we c o m p l a i n t and t h e answer to determine whether t h o s e p l e a d i n g s p r o p e r l y s u p p o r t e d a judgment i n f a v o r of the defendants. We t r e a t t h e t r i a l pleadings, pursuant c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t as a j u d g m e n t on t h e t o Rule 12(c), s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i s de n o v o . A l a . R. C i v . P. Our 5 That judgment i n c o r r e c t l y states that a t r i a l of W a t k i n s ' s c l a i m s was h e l d ; o n l y a h e a r i n g was h e l d b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t on A u g u s t 25, 2009. 4 We a l s o n o t e t h a t , e v e n t h o u g h e x h i b i t s were a t t a c h e d t o Watkins's complaint, the t r i a l court's c o n s i d e r a t i o n of those e x h i b i t s d i d not require the t r i a l court to treat the d e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n as a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . See, e.g., W i l s o n v. F i r s t N a t ' l Bank o f G e o r g i a , 716 So. 2d 722, 726 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f documents a t t a c h e d t o t h e c o m p l a i n t , t h e 5 7 2090005 "'When a m o t i o n f o r j u d g m e n t on t h e p l e a d i n g s i s made b y a p a r t y , " t h e t r i a l court reviews the p l e a d i n g s f i l e d i n t h e case and, i f t h e p l e a d i n g s show t h a t no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t i s p r e s e n t e d , t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i l l e n t e r a judgment f o r the p a r t y e n t i t l e d t o a judgment a c c o r d i n g t o t h e law." B.K.W. E n t e r s . , I n c . v . T r a c t o r & E q u i p . Co., 603 So. 2d 989, 991 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . See a l s o D e a t o n , I n c . v. Monroe, 762 So. 840 ( A l a . 2000) . A j u d g m e n t on t h e p l e a d i n g s i s s u b j e c t t o a de novo r e v i e w . H a r d e n v . R i t t e r , 710 So. 2d 1254, 1255 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997). A c o u r t r e v i e w i n g a j u d g m e n t on t h e pleadings accepts the facts s t a t e d i n the complaint as t r u e a n d v i e w s them i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e n o n m o v i n g p a r t y . I d . a t 1255-56. I f m a t t e r s outside the pleadings are presented t o and c o n s i d e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t , then t h e motion f o r a j u d g m e n t on t h e p l e a d i n g s must be t r e a t e d as a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . See R u l e 1 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. Otherwise, i n d e c i d i n g a motion f o r a j u d g m e n t on t h e p l e a d i n g s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s b o u n d by t h e p l e a d i n g s . See Stockman v. E c h l i n , I n c . , 604 So. 2d 393, 394 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . ' " M e d l o c k v. S a f e w a y I n s . (Ala. 2009) (quoting Co. o f A l a b a m a , Universal Thompson, 776 So. 2d 8 1 , 82-83 judgment towards on a determination controversy Miller, the pleadings " 5C ... 15 So. 3d 5 0 1 , 507 Underwriters (Ala. 2000)). "A m o t i o n f o r theoretically of the substantive Charles I n s . Co. v . Alan Wright i s directed merits of the and A r t h u r R. F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e a n d P r o c e d u r e § 1369 a t 259 (3d e d . i d e n t i t y a n d a u t h e n t i c i t y o f w h i c h were n o t c h a l l e n g e d , d i d not r e q u i r e c o n v e r s i o n o f a motion t o d i s m i s s i n t o a motion f o r a summary j u d g m e n t ) . 8 2090005 2004) (comparing and contrasting m o t i o n f o r a j u d g m e n t on the a motion to dismiss and a pleadings). "[W]hen i t i s c o n s i d e r i n g a m o t i o n f o r a j u d g m e n t on the p l e a d i n g s , the t r i a l c o u r t must r e v i e w the pleadings filed i n the c a s e , and only i f the pleadings show t h a t no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t i s p r e s e n t e d should the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r a judgment f o r the moving p a r t y . See R u l e 1 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.; B.K.W. E n t e r p r i s e s , I n c . v. T r a c t o r & E q u i p m e n t Co., 603 So. 2d 989 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . A m o t i o n for a j u d g m e n t on t h e p l e a d i n g s i s designed to provoke a search of the p l e a d i n g s f o r the purpose of d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e r e i s an i s s u e o f f a c t t h a t r e q u i r e s the i n t r o d u c t i o n of proof. W a r r e n v. R a s c o , 457 So. 2d 399 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) . " Ex p a r t e A l f a F i n . C o r p . , 762 Watkins a s s e r t e d that statute provides, So. 2d 850, 854 a claim pursuant to in pertinent 42 ( A l a . 1999). U.S.C. § 1983; part, " [ e ] v e r y p e r s o n who, u n d e r c o l o r o f any s t a t u t e , ordinance, r e g u l a t i o n , custom, or usage, of any S t a t e or T e r r i t o r y or the D i s t r i c t of Columbia, s u b j e c t s , o r c a u s e s t o be s u b j e c t e d , any c i t i z e n o f the United States or other person w i t h i n the jurisdiction thereof to the d e p r i v a t i o n of any r i g h t s , p r i v i l e g e s , o r i m m u n i t i e s s e c u r e d by the C o n s t i t u t i o n and l a w s , s h a l l be l i a b l e t o t h e p a r t y i n j u r e d i n any a c t i o n a t l a w , s u i t i n e q u i t y , o r other proper proceeding for redress " In W i l l v. M i c h i g a n Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 ( 1 9 8 9 ) , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t a s t a t e was 66. not The a "person" subject t o s u i t u n d e r § 1983. Court also concluded that actions 9 Id. at f i l e d pursuant 65¬ to 2090005 § 1983 and officials asserting claims f o r damages a g a i n s t or employees i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l government c a p a c i t i e s were, i n essence, c l a i m s a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t the s t a t e i t s e l f . Court concluded, asserted against recognized, official a the however, claims state that u n d e r § 1983 prospective relief S t a t e . '" 159, were no itself. a different Id. in n.14 because his would See actions a l s o G r i s w o l d v. A l a b a m a Dep't o f Michigan r a t i o n a l e of to be U.S. (applying supra, her ( q u o t i n g K e n t u c k y v. Graham, 4 73 (1985)). the or the 1500 Will conclude I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s was that v. the n.7 (M.D. 1995) Dep't o f Alabama Ala. State Department employees c a p a c i t i e s but may be Watkins the named sued only for prospective A g a i n s t the backdrop of W i l l , consider c l a i m s and the of immune f r o m s u i t i n f o r m e r e m p l o y e e ' s a c t i o n ; a l s o r e c o g n i z i n g that governmental o f f i c i a l s governmental we Court "'official-capacity I n d u s . R e l a t i o n s , 903 F. Supp. 1492, § 1983 The a r e n o t t r e a t e d as a c t i o n s a g a i n s t I d . a t 71 n.10 167 Police, claims 71. official state at the from c a p a c i t y , when s u e d f o r i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f , "person" for such Thus, Alabama in their or official injunctive relief). s u p r a , and G r i s w o l d , supra, defenses asserted i n t h i s a c t i o n . Department 10 of Corrections as a 2090005 defendant i n t h i s case. a g e n c y , as of the 1983 an arm action. Thus, As recognized state, the i n Griswold, a state i s immune f r o m s u i t trial court properly in a § dismissed W a t k i n s ' s c l a i m s a g a i n s t the Department of C o r r e c t i o n s . Watkins a l s o named as Mitchem, C a p t a i n Wallace, reading of intended the defendants in this a c t i o n Warden and L i e u t e n a n t H a l b r o o k s . complaint, unclear Watkins their o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s , i n t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s , or both. this stage complaint Ins. Co. of the liberally as litigation, 15 So. asserting defendants i n both we must i n f a v o r of Watkins. of Alabama, complaint against these whether defendants i n At to assert claims i t is From o u r 3d at their official In the defendants' M e d l o c k v. 507. claims Thus, we against and construe the Safeway read the the individual individual capacities. answer, they s t a t e d : "The defendants named i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y p l e a d t h e a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e of sovereign immunity." to the Alabama protection has no Clark, to the Sovereign C o n s t i t u t i o n of immunity, a r i s i n g 1901, defendants because applicability to [Ms. 2080483, S e p t . federal-law 18, 2009] 11 § 14, "[s]ection claims." So. 3d pursuant provides 14 immunity Bedsole , no v. (Ala. 2090005 C i v . App. 2009) ( r e j e c t i n g d e f e n d a n t s ' argument t h a t t h e y were e n t i t l e d t o a summary j u d g m e n t on p l a i n t i f f ' s 42 U.S.C. § c l a i m on t h e b a s i s o f s o v e r e i g n Russell, Civ. [Ms. App. actions 2070765, Feb. 2009) seeking see W i l l , and governmental supra supra prospective (same). the capacities, sovereign damages a g a i n s t capacities, the judgment immunity. the parte 3d , (Ala. a declaratory judgment or from e n f o r c i n g an subject to sovereign are subject injunctive Because individual a a l s o Ex immunity). (recognizing that governmental employees federal-law claims, granted are not See So. to enjoin state o f f i c i a l s But for 6, 2009] (actions seeking u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law actions immunity). Watkins's trial court defendants, on To the the individual however, the trial to suit relief); officials in and complaint § 1983 Griswold, asserted c o u l d not only have properly named i n t h e i r official pleadings extent 1983 on Watkins defendants court's the basis of sought monetary in their official judgment i n f a v o r of the i n d i v i d u a l defendants i s a f f i r m e d because c l a i m s f o r such relief are Griswold, barred under § 1983. supra. 12 See Will, supra; and 2090005 The i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s a l s o a s s e r t e d i n t h e i r "The d e f e n d a n t s named i n t h e i r affirmative immunity defense applies governmental of only employees i n d i v i d u a l capacity plead the qualified to sued answer: immunity." governmental i n their Qualified officials individual and capacities. See F l o o d v . S t a t e o f A l a b a m a Dep't o f I n d u s . R e l a t i o n s , 948 F. Supp. 1535, 1547 (M.D. A l a . 1996) ( d i s c u s s i n g of q u a l i f i e d immunity). I n Ex p a r t e M a d i s o n application County Board o f E d u c a t i o n , 1 So. 3d 980 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) , o u r supreme c o u r t s t a t e d : "'"Qualified immunity i s designed to allow government o f f i c i a l s to avoid t h e expense and d i s r u p t i o n o f g o i n g t o t r i a l , and i s n o t merely a defense t o l i a b i l i t y . " H a r d y v . Town o f H a y n e v i l l e , 50 F. Supp. 2d 1176, 1189 (M.D. A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) . "An o f f i c i a l i s e n t i t l e d t o q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y i f he i s p e r f o r m i n g d i s c r e t i o n a r y f u n c t i o n s and h i s a c t i o n s do ' " n o t v i o l a t e c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d s t a t u t o r y o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s o f which a reasonable person w o u l d have known."'" H a r d y , 5 0 F. Supp. 2d a t 118 9 ( q u o t i n g L a n c a s t e r v. Monroe C o u n t y , 116 F.3d 1419, 1424 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) ) . ' " Ex p a r t e M a d i s o n C o u n t y Bd. o f E d u c . , Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Dep't o f Y o u t h (Ala. 1983, S e r v s . , 880 So. 2d 3 9 3 , 402 2003)). In Ala. 1 So. 3d a t 990 ( q u o t i n g H a r d y v. Town o f H a y n e v i l l e 50 F. Supp. 2d 1176 (M.D. 1 9 9 9 ) , an i n m a t e b r o u g h t c l a i m s , p u r s u a n t t o 42 U.S.C. § against an arresting police 13 officer, the chief of 2090005 police, the consideration inmate's Middle of claims, District applicable The mayor, court and the the of the Town defendants' United Alabama States of Hayneville. motion to District discussed at Upon dismiss Court length for the the the law t o the a f f i r m a t i v e defense of q u a l i f i e d immunity. stated: "[The] D e f e n d a n t s ... have a s s e r t e d t h e d e f e n s e of q u a l i f i e d immunity i n a Rule 12(b)(6) motion t o d i s m i s s , and t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d t o q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y at this stage in the proceedings i f the P l a i n t i f f s [ ' ] complaint f a i l s to allege a v i o l a t i o n of a clearly established constitutional right. S a n t a m o r e n a v. G e o r g i a M i l i t a r y C o l l e g e , 147 F.3d 1337, 1340 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1998) . To overcome t h i s i m m u n i t y , a p l a i n t i f f has t h e b u r d e n o f ' p o i n t i n g t o case law which p r e d a t e s the o f f i c i a l ' s alleged improper conduct, i n v o l v e s m a t e r i a l l y s i m i l a r f a c t s , and t r u l y c o m p e l s t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f had a r i g h t under federal law.' Id. When c o n s i d e r i n g whether the law a p p l i c a b l e t o c e r t a i n f a c t s i s c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d , the f a c t s of the case n e e d n o t be t h e same, b u t must be materially similar. I d . a t 1339. Only i n e x c e p t i o n a l cases a r e t h e words o f a f e d e r a l s t a t u t e o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l provision specific enough, or the general c o n s t i t u t i o n a l rule already i d e n t i f i e d i n decisional l a w so c l e a r l y a p p l i c a b l e , so t h a t s p e c i f i c c a s e l a w i s not r e q u i r e d . See i d . a t 1339 n. 6. ' I f case l a w , i n f a c t u a l t e r m s , has n o t s t a k e d o u t a b r i g h t l i n e , q u a l i f i e d immunity almost always p r o t e c t s the d e f e n d a n t . ' L a s s i t e r v. A l a b a m a A & M U n i v . , Bd. o f Trustees, 28 F.3d 1146, 1150 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1994) ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n s and c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . " 14 2090005 50 F. Supp. 2d at 1189-90. Because in response to the i n d i v i d u a l defendants' motions t o d i s m i s s the inmate i n Hardy failed necessary to provide granted their the caselaw, the motions to d i s m i s s individual capacities. Upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f complaint as to the Id. at the the district court defendants sued i n 1190. claims asserted i n Watkins's and t h e d e f e n s e s a s s e r t e d i n t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' answer, the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment i n f a v o r o f the defendants. Because the t r i a l court considered only those pleadings, the could possibly trial court response filed qualified immunity. Watkins the by not have Watkins to Thus, t h e opportunity the c o u r t has the court defendants entered on the a judgment basis j u d g m e n t was prematurely In answer, of their Watkins afforded therewith was "charged a l l necessary under Wolff in that favor To of affirmative claim not defendants' t h e y were e n t i t l e d t o q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y . trial considered defendants' trial to rebut two of afforded claim the e x t e n t the any that the individual defense, that asserted that entered. the with and v. defendants a Behavioral required due McDonnell, 418 15 also Citation process U.S. 539 and was associated (1974)." 2090005 That defense Watkins's required the t r i a l court to consider whether a l l e g a t i o n s s t a t e d a claim; that defense, i n turn, r e q u i r e s t h i s c o u r t t o do t h e same. In States Sandin v. C o n n e r , Supreme Court 515 clarified c h a n g e s made t o an i n m a t e ' s result of d i s c i p l i n a r y constitutionally U.S. 472 the United the circumstances conditions action (1995), will protected liberty i n which of confinement as a d e p r i v e him or her o f a interest: " S t a t e s may under certain circumstances create l i b e r t y i n t e r e s t s w h i c h a r e p r o t e c t e d b y t h e Due Process Clause. But these interests will be g e n e r a l l y l i m i t e d t o freedom from r e s t r a i n t which, while not exceeding the sentence i n such an u n e x p e c t e d manner as t o g i v e r i s e t o p r o t e c t i o n b y t h e Due P r o c e s s C l a u s e o f i t s own f o r c e , n o n e t h e l e s s i m p o s e s a t y p i c a l a n d s i g n i f i c a n t h a r d s h i p on t h e inmate i n r e l a t i o n t o the o r d i n a r y i n c i d e n t s o f prison l i f e . " 515 U.S. a t 483-84 ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . In Sandin, supra, the C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t 30 d a y s i n s e g r e g a t i o n d i d n o t i m p i n g e on the inmate's p r o t e c t e d l i b e r t y due-process rights because i s s u e was s u b s t a n t i a l l y inmates segregated so as t o t r i g g e r h i s the d i s c i p l i n a r y similar for interest other segregation at t o t h e c o n d i t i o n s i m p o s e d on reasons and the inmate's d i s c i p l i n a r y r e c o r d was l a t e r e x p u n g e d ; t h u s , t h e d i s c i p l i n a r y 16 2090005 offense at would not impact the inmate's chance of p a r o l e . 486-87. In W i l k i n s o n Court again Sandin, policy v. A u s t i n , 545 acknowledged supra, required "'impose[d] that a atypical U.S. the court and 209 (2005), the standard to established determine significant Supreme if a Wilkinson, 545 U.S. a t 223 Court discussed ( q u o t i n g S a n d i n , 515 i t s holding U.S. i n Sandin, supra, in prison hardship on inmate i n r e l a t i o n to the o r d i n a r y i n c i d e n t s of p r i s o n The Id. the life.'" at and 484). stated: " S a n d i n f o u n d no l i b e r t y i n t e r e s t p r o t e c t i n g a g a i n s t a 30-day assignment to segregated confinement because i t d i d not 'present a dramatic departure from the basic conditions of [the inmate's] s e n t e n c e . ' I d . a t 485. We n o t e d , f o r e x a m p l e , t h a t inmates in the general population experienced ' s i g n i f i c a n t amounts o f " l o c k d o w n t i m e " ' and that the degree of confinement in disciplinary s e g r e g a t i o n was n o t e x c e s s i v e . I d . , a t 486. We d i d not find, moreover, the short duration of segregation t o work a m a j o r d i s r u p t i o n i n the inmate's environment. Ibid." 545 U.S. at From o u r it i s clear 223. reading that the of Sandin, supra, type of deprivation t h a t d e p r i v a t i o n d e t e r m i n e s w h e t h e r an process i s triggered. labeled the Thus, c i t a t i o n given and W i l k i n s o n , simply the degree inmate's r i g h t because t o W a t k i n s as 17 and the supra, to of due defendants a "behavioral" one 2090005 r a t h e r t h a n as a " d i s c i p l i n a r y " one does n o t c o n t r o l Watkins's r i g h t t o due p r o c e s s was The s t a n d a r d triggered. e s t a b l i s h e d i n S a n d i n has s i n c e b e e n a p p l i e d t o c o n c l u d e t h a t an i n m a t e d i s c i p l i n e d f o r a m i n o r i n f r a c t i o n by s h o r t - t e r m p r i s o n placement other the lower 142 segregation protections. F.3d from h i s or her See, e.g., 1253 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1998) holding that a segregation was two-month not a States that 77 F.3d 372 punishment in for a inmate's stated solitary "represent[s] hardship[s] prison l i f e , ' that rights. 12 in The months substantially ... confinement disciplinary due-process Appeals f o r the Eleventh a Williams v. relation more to [and] we assume t h a t 18 determined for months Eleventh 12 triggered as the C i r c u i t Court of solitary 'atypical the United Circuit infraction of in of (11th C i r . 1996), however, the Court of Appeals placement (affirming deprivation In or v. confinement constitutionally protected l i b e r t y interest). Fountain, regular Rodgers 1252, court's administrative behavioral i s not e n t i t l e d t o a due-process hearing due-process Singletary, whether and ordinary confinement significant incidents of [a p r i s o n e r s u f f e r i n g s u c h ] 2090005 a liberty Williams, deprivation 77 F.3d [is] a t 374 entitled to due process." n.3. In t h e i r answer, the d e f e n d a n t s a s s e r t e d t h a t Watkins "charged with a Behavioral Citation and was was afforded a l l n e c e s s a r y and r e q u i r e d due p r o c e s s a s s o c i a t e d t h e r e w i t h u n d e r Wolff v. McDonnell, McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974)." In Wolff v. t h e Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d : "As t h e [ s t a t e s t a t u t e under c o n s i d e r a t i o n ] makes c l e a r , there are b a s i c a l l y two kinds of punishment f o r f l a g r a n t or s e r i o u s misconduct. The f i r s t i s the f o r f e i t u r e or w i t h h o l d i n g of good-time c r e d i t s , which a f f e c t s the term of confinement, w h i l e the second, confinement i n a d i s c i p l i n a r y cell, involves alteration of the c o n d i t i o n s of confinement. I f the misconduct i s less than f l a g r a n t or s e r i o u s , only d e p r i v a t i o n of p r i v i l e g e s results." 418 U.S. 539, inmates determined violation the loss 547 (1974) to (footnote omitted). be were c o n f i n e d guilty o f any g o o d - t i m e c r e d i t s they p o t e n t i a l l y confinement and Id. serious cell earned; those altered term the only misconduct and suffered disciplinary an i n m a t e ' s d u e - p r o c e s s a f f e c t e d the potentially inmate's confinement. a in a disciplinary a c t i o n s were f o u n d t o t r i g g e r because of In Wolff, of the conditions rights inmate's of the Those i n m a t e s d e t e r m i n e d t o have c o m m i t t e d o n l y m i n o r b e h a v i o r a l i n f r a c t i o n s were p u n i s h e d o n l y 19 2090005 by a l o s s o f p r i v i l e g e s . to have committed a Thus, i n W o l f f , minor those inmates behavioral infraction found were not d i s c i p l i n e d i n s u c h a manner as t o p o t e n t i a l l y s u f f e r a change i n the conditions In t h i s of t h e i r confinement. case, Watkins alleges that he was s i x months t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s e g r e g a t i o n potentially constitutes confinement, thereby a change for -- a p u n i s h m e n t i n the triggering confined his conditions due-process that of h i s rights. Watkins a s s e r t s t h a t t h a t punishment was process. Additionally, defendants themselves characterized Watkins's as behavioral citation. Thus, we upon W o l f f , supra, the violation fail t o see how To t h e e x t e n t deprivation was not allegation policy occurred of that that minor elaboration, could have pleadings. t h e d e f e n d a n t s c l a i m t h a t no c o n s t i t u t i o n a l triggered citation, a the defendants' r e l i a n c e without further e n t i t l e d them t o a j u d g m e n t on t h e i m p o s e d w i t h o u t due because by the argument Warden documenting Watkins's receipt fails Mitchem to r i g h t t o due of a mere respond adopted a l l infractions and process "behavioral" to Watkins's implemented whether minor a or s u b s t a n t i a l -- c o m m i t t e d by i n m a t e s i n p r o t e c t i v e c u s t o d y a t 20 2090005 the Limestone Correctional "behavioral" citations. Facility i t i s the nature of the w h e t h e r t h e p r o t e c t i o n s o f due label given to the deprivation. Further, See offense i n t h e i r favor. deprivation months in of that As supra. trial o f any administrative stated determines p r o c e s s are t r i g g e r e d , not the to the whether the the p l e a d i n g s , the 6 court considered d e f e n d a n t s were e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t on devoid issuance t h a t u l t i m a t e l y gave r i s e Sandin, because the record i s wholly the Thus, t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' argument o f f e r s no s u p p o r t f o r t h e j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d above, by evidence to e s t a b l i s h that s i x segregation did not represent a s i g n i f i c a n t d e p a r t u r e from the normal c o n d i t i o n s of Watkins's c o n f i n e m e n t and prison rights. d i d n o t work a m a j o r d i s r u p t i o n i n W a t k i n s ' s environment, See sufficient Sandin, supra. a l l e g e d i n Watkins's to trigger his due-process Under S a n d i n , t h a t i s t h e issue complaint. We a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e h o l d i n g o f W o l f f v. M c D o n n e l l , s u p r a , has b e e n f u r t h e r r e f i n e d i n S a n d i n , s u p r a . We have a l r e a d y a d d r e s s e d S a n d i n ; as e x p l a i n e d h e r e i n , S a n d i n a l s o does n o t entitle the d e f e n d a n t s t o a j u d g m e n t on the pleadings. We a l s o n o t e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s d i d n o t r e l y on Sandin i n t h e i r answer. 6 21 2090005 The defendants affirmative also defenses estoppel, in their answer the illegality, waiver, and unclean hands. factual d e v e l o p m e n t and e v i d e n t i a r y s u p p o r t , provided entered no a We of asserted basis find i t s u f f i c i e n t to state that, upon judgment which on the the trial those court pleadings in without defenses could favor have of the defendants. We a f f i r m t h e judgment e n t e r e d i n f a v o r o f t h e Department o f C o r r e c t i o n s ; we a l s o a f f i r m t h e judgment as t o any asserted against the i n d i v i d u a l capacities judgment seeking i s due monetary t o be defendants i n t h e i r damages. reversed, asserted against the i n d i v i d u a l The however, as defendants i n t h e i r as claims individual capacities. l i k e l i h o o d of success against We court's t o any and s e e k i n g o n l y p r o s p e c t i v e i n j u n c t i v e asserted official trial capacities t o any no claims official relief the defendants express claims in opinion and their on the on W a t k i n s ' s c l a i m s ; we s i m p l y f i n d t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g a judgment on t h e p l e a d i n g s in of the i n d i v i d u a l favor defendants 22 at t h i s stage of the 2090005 litigation. The c a u s e i s remanded to the t r i a l further proceedings consistent with t h i s court f o r opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , concur. 23 Bryan, a n d Thomas, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.