Filed: Jun. 14, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Case: 19-10002 Date Filed: 06/14/2019 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 19-10002 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 5:16-cv-01699-MHH GLENDA LOCKHART Plaintiff – Appellee, STRIGHTLINE DRYWALL & ACOUSTICAL LLC Plaintiff – Appellee, versus ANA FRANKLIN Defendant – Appellant, _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama _ (June 14, 2019) Case: 19-10002 Date Filed: 06/14/2019 Page: 2 of 9 B
Summary: Case: 19-10002 Date Filed: 06/14/2019 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 19-10002 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 5:16-cv-01699-MHH GLENDA LOCKHART Plaintiff – Appellee, STRIGHTLINE DRYWALL & ACOUSTICAL LLC Plaintiff – Appellee, versus ANA FRANKLIN Defendant – Appellant, _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama _ (June 14, 2019) Case: 19-10002 Date Filed: 06/14/2019 Page: 2 of 9 Be..
More
Case: 19-10002 Date Filed: 06/14/2019 Page: 1 of 9
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-10002
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:16-cv-01699-MHH
GLENDA LOCKHART
Plaintiff – Appellee,
STRIGHTLINE DRYWALL & ACOUSTICAL LLC
Plaintiff – Appellee,
versus
ANA FRANKLIN
Defendant – Appellant,
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(June 14, 2019)
Case: 19-10002 Date Filed: 06/14/2019 Page: 2 of 9
Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ana Franklin is the Sheriff of Morgan County, Alabama. She asserts that the
district court should have dismissed the plaintiffs’ lawsuit against her because their
state-law tort claims are barred by Alabama sovereign immunity and their federal
claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. But she has not met her burden
under state law to show that she was acting within the scope of her employment, so
she is not entitled to state-law immunity. And she is not entitled to sovereign
immunity under the Eleventh Amendment because the plaintiffs are suing her in her
individual capacity for damages. We therefore affirm.
I
Glenda Lockhart, one of the plaintiffs, is a member and owner of Straightline
Drywall and Acoustical, LLC (“Straightline”), a company in Morgan County that
installs drywall and other products in federal buildings. Ms. Lockhart also operates
a “Whistleblower Blog” that “is devoted to investigating and exposing public
corruption by employees of the Morgan County Sheriff’s Department.” In 2015, the
Whistleblower Blog reported extensively on a case involving Sheriff Franklin and a
dispute in which she was accused of “invest[ing] . . . $150,000 of funds collected in
the Morgan County jail food account into Priceville Partners . . . a used car and title
loan business” for her personal interest. D.E. 79 at 3–4.
2
Case: 19-10002 Date Filed: 06/14/2019 Page: 3 of 9
The plaintiffs claim that Sheriff Franklin repeatedly said that she wanted the
Whistleblower Blog shut down and Ms. Lockhart arrested. To further that scheme,
two deputy sheriffs approached Ms. Lockhart’s grandson and told him that “the
Sheriff would pay him $1,000 for information on who was leaking information to
his grandmother.” Id. at 21. The plaintiffs allege that the deputies gave Ms.
Lockhart’s grandson a thumb drive containing keylogger software to install on Ms.
Lockhart’s computer, software that would “record keystrokes on [her] computers in
real time . . . [that could] obtain information concerning the Whistleblower Blog.”
Id. at 22–23. According to the plaintiffs, Sheriff Franklin paid Ms. Lockhart’s
grandson $300 for some information he was able to provide, and instructed him to
“‘pilfer around’ at the Straightline office and gather information.”
Id. at 24.
The plaintiffs allege that Sheriff Franklin lied to Ms. Lockhart’s grandson by
telling him that “the Whistleblower Blog was registered in his name and that it had
been used to commit a felony,” and threatened to arrest him if he did not cooperate.
Id. at 24. After this threat, the grandson installed the Keylogger software on Ms.
Lockhart’s computer, took pictures of her files, and gave those pictures to the
deputies.
Id. at 25. Using this information, one of the deputies “signed a false and
misleading affidavit in order to obtain a warrant to search” (1) the home of someone
suspected of being a source for the Whistleblower blog, (2) Ms. Lockhart’s property,
and (3) the Straightline office.
3
Case: 19-10002 Date Filed: 06/14/2019 Page: 4 of 9
The deputies then executed a search warrant on the Straightline office,
confiscating “files and devices” that prevented Straightline from “conduct[ing]
business.” Id. at 29. The files contained information about Sheriff Franklin’s
involvement with Priceville Partners, and the plaintiffs allege that the defendants
“maliciously destroyed these documents to conceal their corruption” because the
“documents did not fit within the description of the information sought as indicated
by the warrant.”
Id. at 30. Finally, the plaintiffs allege that Sheriff Franklin
slandered Ms. Lockhart by publishing a statement with the press accusing her of
engaging in criminal activity.
Ms. Lockhart and Straightline sued Sheriff Franklin, the deputies, and
sheriff’s department employee Justin Powell in their individual capacities for
damages. 1 The plaintiffs pled six federal and state law claims, and sought solely
monetary relief. The complaint asserts federal claims for violations of the plaintiffs’
First and Fourth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and for violations of
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511. It also asserts claims
under Alabama law, including intentional interference with contractual relations,
civil conspiracy, invasion of privacy, and slander per se.
1
The plaintiffs filed a motion for a separate temporary restraining order against the defendants for
the return of their property, but they voluntarily withdrew the motion.
4
Case: 19-10002 Date Filed: 06/14/2019 Page: 5 of 9
Sheriff Franklin moved to dismiss the state-law claims, arguing that Alabama
grants sheriffs absolute immunity from suits for damages based upon their official
acts. She also argued that, because a suit against the sheriff is viewed as a suit against
the state, the Eleventh Amendment bars the district court from exercising subject-
matter jurisdiction over the suit.
The district court denied her motion to dismiss. The court agreed that Article
I, § 14 of the Alabama Constitution granted Alabama sheriffs immunity “from state
law claims for damages,” but only “when the conduct that forms the basis of the
state law claims was performed within the course and scope of the officer’s
employment.” D.E. 167 at 2. Accepting the allegations of the complaint as true, the
court found the plaintiffs’ state-law claims to be “based on conduct undertaken for
some personal motive to further some personal interest and not as a part of Sheriff
Fraklin’s official duties.” Id. at 3. And there was “no authority for the proposition
that a sheriff acts within the line and scope of her employment when she engages in
bribery, intimidation, and other misconduct to silence a private citizen who has been
publicly critical of the sheriff.”
Id. at 4. Thus, Sheriff Franklin was not entitled to
state-law immunity. She appealed.
II
We review de novo the district court’s order denying a motion to dismiss
based on state-law sovereign immunity. See Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378, 383
5
Case: 19-10002 Date Filed: 06/14/2019 Page: 6 of 9
(11th Cir. 1996). We accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw
all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor. See Dalrymple v. Reno, 334 F.3d
991, 994 (11th Cir. 2003).
Alabama generally grants sovereign immunity to its state executive officers,
sheriffs, and deputy sheriffs pursuant to Article I, Section 14 of the Alabama
Constitution of 1901. See Ex parte Donaldson, 80 So. 3d 895, 897 (Ala. 2011); Ex
Parte Purvis,
689 So. 2d 794, 795–96 (Ala. 1996); Parker v. Amerson,
519 So. 2d
442, 446 (Ala. 1987). This immunity functions as a shield for such officials “from
liability for actions taken in executing the duties of their offices.” Ex parte Davis,
9
So. 3d 480, 483 (Ala. 2008).
But “[n]o state officer,” including a sheriff or deputy sheriff, “can avoid tort
liability simply by claiming that his mere status as a state official cloaks him with
the state’s constitutional immunity.” Ex parte Haralson, 853 So. 2d 928, 933 (Ala.
2003). Compare Ex parte Blankenship,
893 So. 2d 303, 305 (Ala. 2004) (granting a
deputy sheriff immunity from damages arising out of a car accident because the
plaintiff specifically pleaded that the deputy sheriff was acting within the scope of
his authority); Ex parte McWhorter,
880 So. 2d 1116, 1117 (Ala. 2003) (finding that
state immunity applied because “[i]t [wa]s undisputed that Deputy McWhorter was
acting within the line and scope of his employment as a deputy sheriff at the time of
the accident”).
6
Case: 19-10002 Date Filed: 06/14/2019 Page: 7 of 9
Moreover, immunity under § 14 “is an affirmative defense for which the
burden of proof rests with those asserting it.” Hickman v. Dothan City Bd. of Educ.,
421 So. 2d 1257, 1259 (Ala. 1982). See also Matthews v. Alabama A&M Univ.,
787
So. 2d 691, 695 (Ala. 2000) (“Immunity is an affirmative defense that the defendant
must plead and prove.”). In Haralson, for example, the Alabama Supreme Court
denied state immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage because the plaintiff’s
complaint was silent on whether the deputy sheriff was acting within the scope of
his employment and the motion to dismiss failed to provide evidence that the deputy
sheriff had a “clear legal right” to the immunity sought.
Haralson, 853 So. 2d at 933
(“We cannot conclude, at this early stage of the proceedings, without evidence
showing at the time of the accident he was acting within the line and scope of his
employment, that Deputy Haralson is entitled to immunity.”).
The complaint here alleges that Sheriff Franklin acted beyond her authority
(i.e. beyond the scope of her duties) by making allegedly slanderous statements to
the press, by intentionally interfering with the plaintiffs’ contractual relations, and
by intercepting the plaintiffs’ electronic communications. In her motion to dismiss,
Sheriff Franklin simply asserts—without any factual support whatsoever—that she
is entitled to state-law immunity because she serves as sheriff. And on appeal, she
makes the bare conclusory assertion that the “investigation” of Ms. Lockhart
occurred within the “line and scope of her employment.” Appellant’s Br. at 17. At
7
Case: 19-10002 Date Filed: 06/14/2019 Page: 8 of 9
no time has Sheriff Franklin provided evidence (or legal authority) supporting her
claim that she acted within the scope of her employment, which is essential to her
affirmative defense of immunity. We therefore cannot conclude, at the motion-to-
dismiss stage, that Sheriff Franklin was acting within the scope of her employment
and is entitled to state-law immunity.
We emphasize, however, that this appeal is about whether the district court is
required to dismiss the claims on the basis of state-law immunity, not about whether
the plaintiffs are entitled to relief on the merits of their claims. If Sheriff Franklin
believes, after a period of discovery, that the evidence establishes her entitlement to
state-law immunity, she may seek summary judgment on this defense.
III
Sheriff Franklin also asserts that she is entitled to Eleventh Amendment
immunity on the state-law claims because this suit is essentially one against the state
of Alabama. “It is well established in this Circuit that Alabama sheriffs and their
deputies are state officials and are absolutely immune from suit as an officer of the
state under the Eleventh Amendment.” Melton v. Abston, 841 F.3d 1207, 1234 (11th
Cir. 2016). But “Alabama officials who have sovereign immunity when sued in their
official capacities are not entitled to sovereign immunity when they are sued in their
individual capacities under Section 1983.”
Id.
8
Case: 19-10002 Date Filed: 06/14/2019 Page: 9 of 9
As the district court explained, the plaintiffs have sued Sheriff Franklin for
damages in her individual capacity. Therefore, the Eleventh Amendment does not
bar the plaintiffs’ suit.
IV
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial of the motion
to dismiss filed by Sheriff Franklin.
AFFIRMED.
9
