VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Ronnie Guy Young ("Mr. Young") initiated this civil rights lawsuit on March 7, 2014. On May 30, 2014, Mr. Young filed a first amended complaint (Doc. 10) against the following seven individual defendants who have all been sued in their personal capacities only: Kimberly Myhrer ("Officer Myhrer"), Ronald Higgins ("Officer Higgins"), Timothy Laatsch ("Sergeant Laatsch"), Shanna Young ("Officer Young"), Matthew Joiner ("Officer Joiner"), David Mitchell ("Officer Mitchell"), and Shane Mills ("Officer Mills") (collectively, the "Defendants"). (Doc. 10 ¶¶ 4-6).
By virtue of the court's prior ruling on summary judgment, Mr. Young's federal counts for deliberate indifference and conspiracy to interfere with civil rights were dismissed with prejudice (Doc. 55 at 24), and only his state law claims for negligence, wantonness, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress remained in this lawsuit. (Id. at 24, 29). Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal on September 18, 2015, challenging the court's rejection of their state sovereign immunity defense raised under the Jailer Liability Protection Act of 2011 (the "Jailer Act") to these state law claims on summary judgment. (Doc. 57).
On July 1, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit reversed this court's sovereign immunity ruling adverse to Defendants and remanded this case for a determination in the first instance:
(Doc. 63-1 at 9-10). On December 12, 2016, this court entered an order establishing a briefing schedule on the remand issues identified by the Eleventh Circuit under the Jailer Act. (Doc. 64).
Defendants filed their initial brief (Doc. 65) on December 29, 2016. Mr. Young filed
Mr. Young has an extensive criminal history in California, having been convicted of assault with a firearm, possession of drugs, and possession of drugs with the intent to distribute. AF No. 1.1.
In 2011, Mr. Young was convicted in California of distribution of methamphetamines and received a sentence of either four years of incarceration or participation in an in-house drug program. AF No. 3.1. Mr. Young participated in the program for approximately one and a half months, at which time he fled to Alabama. AF No. 3.2. A fugitive from justice warrant was issued by California Department of Corrections
On December 28, 2009, James Wesley Howard ("Mr. Howard") was arrested and charged with the murder of Kara Nichole Lee ("Kara Lee"), and was incarcerated in the Shelby County Jail pending trial for capital murder. AF No. 5.1. Kara Lee was approximately 2 years old at the time of her death and Mr. Howard was the boyfriend of Kara Lee's mother, Britany Lee. AF No. 5.2. Mr. Young's nephew, William Young, Jr., ("William Young") was the father of Kara Lee. AF No. 5.3. While Mr. Young was in Alabama as a fugitive from California, he spoke with William Young several times about Mr. Howard, and during these conversations William Young told Mr. Young that Mr. Howard was incarcerated in the Shelby County jail. AF No. 6.
On the early morning hours of March 9, 2012, Mr. Young was arrested by the U.S. Marshal's Service at the home of his brother, George Young, in Shelby, Alabama. AF No. 7. Mr. Young was transported to the Shelby County jail and booked in on March 9, 2012. AF No. 8.1. The booking officers received a report that Mr. Young was a known felon, gang member, had a history of carrying a gun, assaulting police officers, and was an escape risk. AF No. 8.2. It was also reported that Mr. Young had claimed to be a member of the Southern Brotherhood, a white supremacist gang. AF No. 8.3.
During the booking process, an Inmate Questionnaire (the "Questionnaire") was completed which Mr. Young signed. AF No. 9.1; (see also Doc. 51-11 at 4 at 10 (Officer Higgins's answering affirmatively that he was the officer who asked Mr. Young the questions on the Questionnaire)). Question number 25 asked Mr. Young if he was "aware of any reason [he] should be separated from another inmate while [he] is here?" to which Mr. Young responded "no". AF No. 9.2. Officer Higgins asked Mr. Young the questions verbatim as set out on the Questionnaire, and marked down Mr. Young's responses. AF No. 9.3; (see also Doc. 51-11 at 4 at 11 (Officer Higgins's testifying that "Sergeant Myers told me that you are to ask each question verbatim to the inmate, and that's how I asked them, verbatim")). Further, Mr. Young signed the Questionnaire attesting to the accuracy of the information. AF No. 9.3. Additionally, at no time did Mr. Young inform the booking officers about his adverse affiliation with Mr. Howard or otherwise indicate that he should be separated from Mr. Howard.
Mr. Young testified that he heard the [Deputy] U.S. Marshal state to the booking officers that he was to remain in isolation, as opposed to being placed in the general population. (Doc. 52 at 6 ¶ 10). Initially, Officer Myhrer placed Mr. Young in administrative segregation. AF No. 10.
On March 10, 2012, Officer Joiner classified Mr. Young as a maximum security inmate based on his extensive history of assaultive behavior and on the reports from the arresting officers. AF No. 11.1.
On March 12, 2012, Sergeant Laatsch continued to investigate Mr. Young's criminal and behavioral history in order to further assess his classification status. AF No. 12.1. Due to the fact that Sergeant Laatsch had received conflicting reports as to Mr. Young's criminal history and since he could not confirm the charges of assaults against officers and escape attempts, Sergeant Laatsch had Mr. Young moved from an administrative segregation cell to Unit B-3, which is a single person lockdown cell. AF No. 12.2.
On the morning of March 14, 2012, Sergeant Laatsch continued his investigation into the behavioral reports concerning Mr. Young. AF No. 16.1. He was unsuccessful in confirming that Mr. Young was an escape risk and had a violent history toward correction staff while at previous institutions. AF No. 16.2. He further reviewed Mr. Young's history and considered a report from Sergeant Dixon
In the afternoon of March 14, 2012, prior to the end of his shift, Sergeant Laatsch sent an email to Officer Joiner informing him that he was unable to complete three inmate housing moves during the day shift, and for Officer Joiner to make these moves during his shift if he had the time. AF No. 17.1. One of these housing moves was for Mr. Young to be moved from his B3 single cell to Pod A, Block 6. AF No. 17.2. Pod A, Block 6 (A-6) houses both maximum and medium security inmates having a history of assaultive behavior. AF No. 18.
Pod A is comprised of a number of cell blocks. AF No. 19.1. Each block contains a number of cells. AF No. 19.2. In the center of the pod is a tower manned by a correctional officer, with a view into each block. AF No. 19.3. There are two additional officers assigned to the pod who act as rovers throughout the pod. AF No. 19.4.
Each block surrounding the tower is triangular in shape. AF No. 19.5. A-6 is comprised of a large room with tables, chairs, phones, a television, and showers, referred to as the "dayroom". AF No. 19.6. Along the back wall of the block are two-man cells, configured in a lower and upper level. AF No. 19.7. The cell doors routinely remain open during the day so that inmates can utilize the dayroom and go to and from their cells. AF No. 19.8.
Each block is monitored by a closed circuit camera which feeds into the tower. AF No. 20.1. Each block is also equipped with an intercom system which an inmate can use to communicate directly with the tower guard. AF No. 20.2.
Mr. Howard was housed in A-6. AF No. 21.1. Within a few minutes of Mr. Young entering A-6, Mr. Howard approached Mr. Young and introduced himself to him. AF No. 21.2. Mr. Young confronted Mr. Howard with the death of his great niece, and the two began to argue in the dayroom. AF No. 21.3.
Mr. Young accused Mr. Howard of killing his niece, to which Mr. Howard responded
Immediately after Mr. Howard entered his cell, he bent down next to his bunk and started going through his paperwork. AF No. 23.1. While Mr. Young was standing beside and over Mr. Howard, Mr. Young began punching Mr. Howard in the head. AF No. 23.2. Mr. Howard retaliated and punched Mr. Young several times, knocking him to the floor. AF No. 23.3. Mr. Howard kicked Mr. Young several times and then left the cell. AF No. 23.4.
Mr. Young was taken to the jail medical unit and then transferred to the Shelby Baptist Medical Center. AF No. 24.1. From there he was transported to UAB Hospital. AF No. 24.2.
While Mr. Young criticizes its thoroughness (Doc. 52 at 8 ¶ 25), an investigation into the fight took place, including a recorded interview of Mr. Young. AF No. 25.1. During the interview, Mr. Young claimed not to remember any details of the fight and that his last memory was of him packing his belongings to move from B-3 to A-6. AF No. 25.2. Additionally, Mr. Young admitted in the interview that he knew Mr. Howard was in the Shelby County jail and further admitted that he did not inform the correctional officers of his relationship to Mr. Howard or that he should be separated from Mr. Howard. AF No. 26.
On multiple occasions prior to his fight with Mr. Howard, Mr. Young had the opportunity to inform the jail guards of his adverse affiliation with Mr. Howard and yet he never did this. AF No. 32.1. More specifically, Mr. Young interacted with the guards on a routine basis throughout the day, including being escorted by guards to the shower and being served meals. AF Nos. 32.2, 32.3, 32.4. Additionally, Mr. Young could have informed Sergeant Dixon about his knowledge of Mr. Howard while being interviewed, but failed to do so. AF No. 32.5.
Mr. Young also could have brought the potential conflict issue to Defendants' attention when he was being moved, but instead he remained silent and never informed any Defendants (or other correctional personnel) about this combustible relationship. AF Nos. 32.6, 32.7. Finally, Mr. Young also could have alerted the tower guard via the intercom system in the dayroom that he should not be housed in the same block as Mr. Howard, once he realized his presence. AF No. 32.8. Instead, Mr. Young followed Mr. Howard to Mr. Howard's cell and instigated a physical fight with him. AF No. 32.9.
On March 16, 2012, Mr. Young was returned back to the jail from UAB Hospital, and then was extradited to California on March 27, 2012, to serve out his sentence. AF No. 27.
As the Eleventh Circuit has explained the standard on motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction:
Lawrence v. Dunbar, 919 F.2d 1525, 1528-29 (11th Cir. 1990)(emphasis added). Here, the jurisdictional attack by Defendants on Mr. Young's state law claims is factual.
As the Eleventh Circuit set forth the Alabama sovereign immunity doctrine in Lancaster v. Monroe County, 116 F.3d 1419 (11th Cir. 1997), abrogation on other grounds as recognized by Melton v. Abston, 841 F.3d 1207, 1233 (11th Cir. 2016):
Lancaster, 116 F.3d at 1430-31 (emphasis added); see also McMillian v. Johnson, 101 F.3d 1363, 1365 ("Notwithstanding this confusing language in Tinney, the holding of the case is clear: under Alabama law, a claim against an Alabama sheriff in his individual capacity is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.").
Further, whenever a district court agrees that sovereign immunity divests it from having subject matter jurisdiction over a claim, granting relief in the form of summary judgment is error; instead, the court must dismiss without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). See Stanley v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 639 F.2d 1146, 1157 (5th Cir. 1981) ("Accordingly, we conclude that the court below erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the United States [on the basis of sovereign immunity] and should have dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.");
In its reversal of this court, the Eleventh Circuit described the history leading up to the passage of the Jailer Act:
(Doc. 63-1 at 3-4).
As a result of the Jailer Act's passage, Ala. Code § 14-6-1 now reads:
Ala. Code § 14-6-1 (emphasis added).
The related statutory counterpart that discusses the duties of the sheriff similarly provides as a subpart:
Ala. Code § 36-22-3(b) (emphasis added).
In his brief, Mr. Young expressly "concedes that he does not have a cognizable cause of action against Officer Ronald Higgins, who was being trained as a booking officer by Officer Myhrer and only asked Plaintiff questions on an intake questionnaire." (Doc. 66 at 20).
Therefore, all state law claims asserted against Officers Higgins, Mitchell, and Mills are due to be dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds as conceded or abandoned by Mr. Young. See, e.g., Wilkerson v. Grinnell Corp., 270 F.3d 1314, 1322 (11th Cir. 2001) (finding claim abandoned when argument not presented in initial response to motion for summary judgment); Bute v. Schuller International, Inc., 998 F.Supp. 1473, 1477 (N.D. Ga. 1998) (finding unaddressed claim abandoned); see also Coalition for the Abolition of Marijuana Prohibition v. City of Atlanta, 219 F.3d 1301, 1326 (11th Cir. 2000) (failure to brief and argue issue at the district court is sufficient to find the issue has been abandoned); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dunmar Corp., 43 F.3d 587, 599 (11th Cir. 1995) ("[T]he onus is upon the parties to formulate arguments; grounds alleged in the complaint but not relied upon in summary judgment are deemed abandoned."); Hudson v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 209 F.Supp.2d 1301, 1324 (N.D. Ga. 2001) ("When a party fails to respond to an argument or otherwise address a claim, the Court deems such argument or claim abandoned. (citing Dunmar, 43 F.3d at 599); cf. McMaster v. United States, 177 F.3d 936, 940-41 (11th Cir. 1999) (claim may be considered abandoned when district court is presented with no argument concerning a claim included in the plaintiff's complaint); Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669 v. Independent Sprinkler Corp., 10 F.3d 1563, 1568 (11th Cir. 1994) (concluding that a district court "could properly treat as abandoned a claim alleged in the complaint but not even raised as a ground for summary judgment").
Mr. Young's contested state law claims against the remaining four Defendants-Officers Young, Myhrer, and Joiner and Sergeant Laatsch-require this court to determine the scope of, and apply, sovereign immunity under the Jailer Act. As set out above, jailers are covered under the Jailer Act so long as two conditions are present: they are "acting within the line and scope of their duties and are acting in compliance with the law." Ala. Code §§ 14-6-1, 36-22-3(b). Concerning the first prong, Defendants have stated on remand that they previously developed uncontested evidence that "was required to satisfy the burden [that Mr. Young] represented was necessary for Defendants to invoke the privilege of sovereign immunity...." (Doc. 65 at 18-19).
Based on the parties' briefs and this court's related research, what the "acting in compliance with the law" component means under the Jailer Act remains an open question under Alabama and Eleventh Circuit law. Several district courts that have addressed this phrase are in agreement that the language must mean more than just a restatement of the Jailer Act's first prong; otherwise, the phrase would be superfluous. See, e.g., Sawyer v. Collins, No. CIV. A. 12-0020-KD-M, 2012 WL 6046019, at *10 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 2, 2012) [hereinafter Sawyer R & R] ("The Court ... finds that such an interpretation would render the second requirement of no moment as the requirement has already been stated."), report and recommendation adopted after certified question declined, No. CIV. A. 2:12-0020-KD, 2013 WL 2458458 (S.D. Ala. June 6, 2013); Hobbs v. Powell, 138 F.Supp.3d 1328, 1337 (N.D. Ala. 2015) ("However, acting within the line and scope of one's duty is not enough to guarantee immunity, as immunity is also conditioned on `acting in compliance with the law.'"). Such a repetitive interpretation would also contradict fundamental principles of statutory construction under Alabama law. See, e.g., Ex parte Uniroyal Tire Co., 779 So.2d 227, 236 (Ala. 2000) ("`There is a presumption that every word, sentence, or provision was intended for some useful purpose, has some force and effect, and that some effect is to be given to each, and also that no superfluous words or provisions were used'" (quoting Sheffield v. State, 708 So.2d 899, 909 (ALA. CRIM. APP. 1997))), overturned on other grounds due to legislative action of Alabama Sp. Sess. Act 2001-1113; see also Ex parte Darnell, 262 Ala. 71, 81, 76 So.2d 770, 778 (1954) ("In determining this question we must look to the statute and in construing the statute
As one court has aptly described the statutory conundrum contained in the Jailer Act by virtue of the "law" clause:
Bell v. Advanced Correctional Healthcare, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-0278-TMP, 2016 WL 7242170, at *5 (N.D. Ala. Dec. 14, 2016). Thus, the plain meaning rule is inapplicable in this situation and this court must construct the meaning of the "law" prong. Cf. City of Bessemer v. McClain, 957 So.2d 1061, 1074 (Ala. 2006) (explaining that "[i]f, giving the statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning, we conclude that the language is unambiguous, there is no room for judicial construction" (citing Ex parte Waddail, 827 So.2d 789, 794 (Ala. 2001))).
This "in compliance with the law" language "do[es] not appear in the bill, as it was initially introduced, for either statute." Sawyer R & R, 2012 WL 6046019, at *10 Unfortunately, the legislative history for both code sections lack "information as to how th[is] amendment[ ] w[as] formed or came to be part of the bill." Sawyer R & R, 2012 WL 6046019, at *10.
Sawyer Certified, 2012 WL 6052000, at *2. Although the Supreme Court of Alabama "initially accepted the question certified to it by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama...." it subsequently declined to provide an answer. Sawyer v. Collins, 129 So.3d 1004, 1004 (Ala. 2013).
In Justice Shaw's dissenting opinion to the Supreme Court of Alabama's decision not to answer the Sawyer Certified question, he opined:
Sawyer, 129 So.3d at 1006-07 (emphasis added) (Shaw, J., dissenting). Upon the case's return to federal court, the district court accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation, 2013 WL 2458458, at *1, that the defendants could not satisfy the second prong of the Jailer Act without having to decide whether "acting in compliance with the law" included the obligation to follow "nondiscretionary orders, rules, regulations, statutes, checklists, and/or policies[.]" Sawyer R & R, 2012 WL
Sawyer R & R, 2012 WL 6046019, at *11 (emphasis added). Thus, because the plaintiff in Sawyer had a viable deliberate indifference claim under the Eighth Amendment, the jailers were not acting in compliance with the law and the plaintiff's common-law negligence claim was not subject to a jurisdictional dismissal on sovereign immunity grounds.
More recently, in Hobbs v. Powell, 138 F.Supp.3d 1328 (N.D. Ala. 2015), another judge sitting in the Northern District of Alabama addressed the meaning of this second prong in the context of a wrongful death claim that was challenged by the defendant jailers in a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). After first determining that Ala. Code § 14-6-1, as amended, was constitutional, "the remaining question [wa]s whether defendant jailers [we]re entitled to the immunity granted to jail personnel by Ala. Code § 14-6-1." Hobbs, 138 F.Supp.3d at 1337. In denying the defendant jailers' immunity defense, the Hobbs court discussed the various parts of the Sawyer case history and, in particular, explained:
Hobbs, 138 F.Supp.3d at 1339 (emphasis by underlining added). Thus, because the plaintiff had not only a cognizable deliberate indifference claim, but also an underlying state statute regarding medical care that the defendant jailers had arguably violated, the Hobbs court concluded that the Jailer Act did "not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claim [for wrongful death] against defendant jailers...." Id. at 1340; see also Johnson v. Milliner, 65 F.Supp.3d 1295, 1305 (S.D. Ala. 2014) ("The statutory immunity in Ala. Code § 14-6-1 and Ala.
Mr. Young argues in his brief that the "law" prong removes immunity protection for the remaining Defendants because they "violated their own agency's policies and procedures, as well as the laws of negligence, wantonness, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.... [and that] the individual defendants must therefore prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they did not violate those laws." (Doc. 66 at 11). As an initial matter, the court disagrees with Mr. Young's reliance upon acts of negligence, wantonness, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, without more, as adequate examples of the relevant "law" under the disputed Jailer Act prong. The cases discussed above certainly do not embrace that suggested construction of the Jailer Act. Moreover, Mr. Young has offered no authority which even arguably supports such a strained view of the "law" prong. See Ex parte Watley, 708 So.2d 890, 892 (Ala. 1997) ("It has been called a golden rule of statutory interpretation that unreasonableness of the result produced by one among alternative possible interpretations of a statute is reason for rejecting that interpretation in favor of another which would produce a reasonable result...." (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Ex parte Meeks, 682 So.2d 423, 428 (Ala. 1996)) (in turn quoting Norman J. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 45.11, p. 61 (5th ed. 1993))); cf. McClain, 957 So.2d at 1075 ("If a literal construction would produce an absurd and unjust result that is clearly inconsistent with the purpose and policy of the statute, such a construction is to be avoided.").
Instead, consistent with the above persuasive authorities, this court concludes that § 14-6-1, as amended, provides sovereign immunity to jailers for all state law torts (just like sheriffs and sheriff deputies) so long as those jailers are acting within the line and scope of their duties and they are complying with criminal statutes, civil statutes, and constitutional standards. In this court's view, if a case has reached the dispositive motions phase, only when sufficient evidence exists that a jailer has violated a criminal statute, a civil statute, or a constitutional principle
In both Sawyer and Hobbs, the plaintiffs (unlike Mr. Young) persevered at the pleadings stage in light of each one having a cognizable deliberate indifference claim. The Hobbs plaintiff had the additional statutory duties provided under Ala. Code § 14-6-19, as part of his "law" prong arsenal. At the same time, this court has been unable to find a decision in which a court has held that reliance upon policies and procedures as the "law" is foreclosed under the Jailer Act. Further, Hobbs hinted in dicta that non-compliance with policies and procedures might remove a jailer's sovereign immunity shield. See Hobbs, 138 F.Supp.3d at 1339 ("The plain language of the statute requires jail personnel to act in compliance with the law to receive the protection of § 14-6-1 immunity, and
Therefore, in the absence of legislative history, a statutory amendment, or an Alabama Supreme Court case confirming that compliance with the law includes adhering to policies and procedures governing jailers, cf. Sawyer, 129 So.3d at 1006 ("The answer to that query has not been decided by an Alabama court, and it is clearly an issue an Alabama court should be the first to decide."), this court rejects Mr. Young's position that the "law" prong rightfully closes the sovereign immunity door on those jailers whose actions merely deviate from policies and procedures. In fact, under Mr. Young's expansive interpretation of the "law" prong, a jailer who failed to follow policies and procedures would be treated with a degree of protection from litigation that is more consistent with Alabama's state agent immunity doctrine rather than the broad scope of sovereign immunity afforded to sheriffs and sheriff deputies.
See Ex parte Cranman, 792 So.2d 392, 405 (Ala. 2000) (plurality opinion) (emphasis by underlining added), holding for category
Such an incongruous result would substantially undermine the overall legislative purpose of the Jailer Act-to cloak jail personnel with the same (or nearly the same) level of sovereign immunity as is enjoyed by Alabama sheriffs and sheriff deputies. See Ala. Code § 14-6-1 ("Persons so employed by the sheriff shall be acting for and under the direction and supervision of the sheriff and
Put differently, taking the "law" prong to a policy and procedures level would substantially eviscerate the scope of the sovereign immunity defense that the Alabama Legislature intended to provide in passing the Jailer Act. See Clark, 507 So.2d at 903 ("If the statute is ambiguous or uncertain, the court may consider conditions which might arise under the provisions of the statute and examine results that will flow from giving the language in question one particular meaning rather than another." (citing Studdard v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., 356 So.2d 139, 142 (Ala. 1978))). Instead, the court finds that the Alabama Supreme Court would not embrace a statutory construction of the Jailer Act that would limit state law immunity coverage for jailers when carrying out policies and procedures incorrectly (whether intentionally or unintentionally) and would reasonably interpret the Jailer Act in a manner that would render it more effective than a discretionary-driven defense already available under state agent immunity. See, e.g., Uniroyal, 779 So.2d at 236 ("`It must be presumed,' however, that statutes are enacted with a meaningful purpose.'" (quoting Adams v. Mathis, 350 So.2d 381, 385-86 (Ala. 1977))); Ex parte Watley, 708 So.2d 890, 892 (Ala. 1997) ("The Legislature will not be presumed to have done a futile thing in enacting a statute."); cf. Hill v. Fairfield Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., LLC, 134 So.3d 396, 404 (Ala. 2013) (rejecting medical provider's attempt "to control the standard of care for which it will be held responsible simply by having some department within its corporate structure,
Although Mr. Young's lawsuit includes a constitutional count alleging a violation of his Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights (Doc. 1 at 5 ¶ 25), this court has previously determined that he lacks sufficient evidence to support that deliberate indifference claim. (See Doc. 55 at 19-20 ("Therefore, in the absence of proof establishing Defendants' requisite subjective awareness [of the adverse connection shared between Mr. Young and Mr. Howard or the potential danger created by placing Mr. Young in the same cell block as Mr. Howard], no reasonable jury could ever find in Mr. Young's favor on his deliberate indifference claim.")).
Assuming for argument purposes that a violation of jail policies and procedures could constitute non-compliance under the "law" prong of the Jailer Act, Defendants would still be entitled to a sovereign-immunity dismissal of Mr. Young's state law claims for a different reason. As pointed out by Defendants in their reply brief:
(Doc. 67 at 3). The court has reviewed Mr. Young's first amended complaint and agrees it lacks any allegations that Defendants failed to follow jail policies or procedures or that they failed to intervene to protect Mr. Young.
Defendants further explain, with reference to controlling case authority:
(Doc. 67 at 3); see also Flintlock Const. Servs., LLC v. Well-Come Holdings, LLC, 710 F.3d 1221, 1228 (11th Cir. 2013) ("In affirming the district court's dismissal of the claim at issue, we refused to consider these additional facts, citing precedent that precludes a plaintiff from amending its complaint `through argument at the summary judgment phase of proceedings.'" (quoting GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. Georgia, 687 F.3d 1244, 1258 n. 27 (11th Cir. 2012))); Flintlock, 710 F.3d at 1228 ("This court's precedent foreclosed Well-Come's attempt to amend its complaint at the summary judgment stage without seeking leave of court[.]"); Blankenship, 893 So.2d at 306 (recognizing that "[i]t is a well-settled rule that a party is bound by what it states in its pleadings" (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Help At Home, Inc. v. Medical Capital, L.L.C., 260 F.3d 748, 753 (7th Cir. 2001)) (citing Best Canvas Prods. & Supplies, Inc. v. Ploof Truck Lines, Inc., 713 F.2d 618, 621 (11th Cir. 1983))).
Therefore, based upon binding Eleventh Circuit, Defendants are alternatively entitled to a sovereign-immunity dismissal under the Jailer Act because Mr. Young's first amended complaint is devoid of allegations that Defendants violated policies and procedures and he has not sought leave to amend his complaint to include those critical assertions.
Assuming for argument purposes that a violation of policies and procedures could constitute non-compliance under the "law" prong of the Jailer Act and that Mr. Young's first amended complaint puts Defendants on notice of that category of non-compliance, Defendants would still be entitled to a sovereign-immunity dismissal of Mr. Young's state law claims because Mr. Young has not carried his evidentiary burden. In particular, the court rejects Mr. Young's reliance upon the self-defense immunity structure for Ala. Code § 13-3-23(d) addressed in Ex parte Watters, No. 1150182, 2016 WL 6135232 (Ala. Oct. 21, 2017) (Doc. 66 at 11-13) as a useful framework for deciding burdens of proof under the Jailer Act. (Doc. 66 at 11). In making this particular argument, Mr. Young has missed a key ingredient of the Jailer Act-it bestows Alabama jailers with sovereign immunity, not qualified immunity. (Cf. Doc. 66 at 12 ("Although Watters' holding applied to Ala. Code § 13A-3-23, it is equally applicable to the
Mr. Young's position that Defendants must prove their compliance with jail policies and procedures to retain (or avoid a waiver of) sovereign immunity is also at odds with the overriding general principle that the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls squarely upon the party who is attempting to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal court. McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Indiana, 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S.Ct. 780, 785, 80 S.Ct. 1135 (1936); see also Sweet Pea Marine, Ltd. v. APJ Marine, Inc., 411 F.3d 1242, 1247 (11th Cir. 2005) ("The burden for establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction rests with the party bringing the claim." (citing McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam))); cf. Carter v. Butts Cty., 821 F.3d 1310, 1324 (11th Cir. 2016) (recognizing under Georgia law that "burden of demonstrating a waiver of sovereign immunity falls on the party seeking to benefit from it");
The court further finds that an approach which places a burden on the jailer to demonstrate that he was acting in compliance with policies and procedures is untenable because it would make accessing sovereign immunity under the Jailer Act more difficult for a jailer than receiving state agent immunity. Additionally, putting that burden on the plaintiff at the dispositive motions phase is comparable with the burden placed on the plaintiff at the pleadings stage in Sawyer-the plaintiff's state law common-law negligence claim was not dismissed under the Jailer Act because the plaintiff had plausibly shown that the jailer defendants had violated the Eighth Amendment. Sawyer R & R, 2012 WL 6046019, at *11.
Therefore, consistent with the Jailer Act's overall purpose to place jailers on nearly equal legal footing with sheriff and sheriff deputies and the general jurisdictional principles referenced above, the court concludes that Mr. Young has the burden to show sufficient evidence of Defendants' non-compliance with policies and procedures for this court to acquire subject matter jurisdiction over his state law claims. Further, the evidence that Mr. Young has relied upon in his post-remand brief is inadequate to meet that burden.
As for those policies and procedures discussed more specifically, Mr. Young maintains that Defendants disregarded the prisoner classification process as provided for under the Classification Handbook (Officer Joiner and Sergeant Laatsch). (Doc. 66 at 13-14, 18-20). Further, without referencing a specific policy or procedure, Mr. Young contends that Officer Young failed to adequately perform tower operator duties and Officer Myhrer failed to follow or report explicit instructions from the U.S. Marshal to keep Mr. Young in isolation. (Doc. 66 at 17-18).
The court first addresses Mr. Young's contentions relating to Officers Young and Myhrer. In the absence of Mr. Young's linking these challenged acts to a specific jail policy or procedure that these Defendants have arguably violated, those arguments are, on their face, insufficient to show non-compliance with the law under the Jailer Act.
As for the challenged actions of Officer Joiner, Mr. Young contends that he violated the Classification Handbook when Mr. Young was placed into A-6. The complete paragraph from the Classification Handbook that Mr. Young relies upon states:
(Doc. 51-15 at 19).
Because the Classification Handbook expressly
Further, even if Officer Joiner or Sergeant Laatsch had completed a written report at the time Mr. Young was moved, Mr. Young has failed to demonstrate how adhering to that reporting procedure would have made a meaningful difference. The same resulting injuries still would have occurred with the paperwork completed because Mr. Young still would have been moved to A-6 and gotten into an altercation with Mr. Howard. To the extent Mr. Young's brief speculates that if Officer Joiner and Sergeant Laatsch had adhered to the reporting rule, Mr. Young would have remained in his single cell or placed somewhere else other than in A-6, "[s]tatements by counsel in briefs are not evidence." Skyline Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 613 F.2d 1328, 1337 (5th Cir. 1980), and Mr. Young is left with no supporting evidence. Therefore, the court alternatively finds that, to the extent the "law" prong of the Jailer Act includes violations of policies and procedures, Mr. Young has the burden to show how Defendants have violated policies and procedures in a manner that proximately caused his injuries and damages. Further, based upon the record before this court, Mr. Young has not met his burden. Therefore, a sovereign-immunity dismissal of Mr. Young's state law claims in favor of Defendants is appropriate for this third alternative reason.
Thus, on remand, a without-prejudice dismissal of Mr. Young's state law claims is appropriate for three alternative reasons. First, for a jailer to receive sovereign immunity protection comparable to sheriffs, the "law" clause requires compliance with civil statutes, criminal statutes, and constitutional principles, but not with common-law torts or policies and procedures. Second, assuming the Jailer Act requires compliance with policies and procedures to preserve sovereign immunity, Mr. Young's first amended complaint omits any such critical allegations and, absent obtaining leave to amend, Mr. Young's policies-and-procedures theory is not properly before the court from a procedural standpoint. Third, assuming that the "law" clause does require compliance with policies and procedures and excusing Mr. Young's lack of reference to any within his first amended complaint, Mr. Young has the burden to show Defendants' non-compliance with them for a jailer's sovereign immunity to be waived and he has not met that burden on this record.
Accordingly, the court's previous ruling on Mr. Young's state law claims (Doc. 55 at 24-29) is due to be vacated. Instead, Mr. Young's state law claims against all Defendants are due to be dismissed without
Johnson, 720 F.3d at 1313 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Alexander v. Hatfield, 652 So.2d 1142, 1143 (Ala. 1994)); see also Tinney, 77 F.3d at 383 ("Because the sheriff in Alexander was being sued for damages and not injunctive relief, the court held that the exceptions to Section 14 were inapplicable and therefore the sheriff was immune from suit."); Tinney, 77 F.3d at 383 (reversing district court's denial of sovereign immunity in suit claiming, "damages, based upon [intentional torts] of conversion and trespass" arising under Alabama law).
