Alexander v. Hatfield
| Decision Date | 04 November 1994 |
| Parties | Otis ALEXANDER v. B. HATFIELD, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as a Montgomery County Sheriff's Department Deputy. 1930950. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Allen R. Stoner of McPhillips, Shinbaum & Gill, Montgomery, for appellant.
Thomas T. Gallion III of Haskell, Slaughter, Young, Johnston & Gallion, Montgomery, for appellee.
Otis Alexander sued Betty Hatfield, a deputy sheriff, individually and in her official capacity as a deputy sheriff, alleging negligent and/or bad faith service of process. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of Deputy Hatfield. Alexander appealed.
Alexander was the respondent in regard to a petition for a rule nisi filed in Autauga County, Alabama, by his ex-wife. Unable to serve Alexander at his residence in Autauga County, the Autauga sheriff referred the process to the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office for delivery to Alexander at his place of employment in Montgomery County, Rheem Manufacturing Company.
Deputy Hatfield, a sergeant with the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office, has been serving papers at Rheem for over 14 years. At Rheem's request, service of process was completed on employees by leaving the papers with the personnel manager, who would then serve the employee. Rheem followed this practice so that its employees would not lose production time or be embarrassed by having papers served on them while they were working.
Alexander denies receiving the papers at Rheem. He was arrested and was incarcerated for six days because he failed to appear at the rule nisi hearing. Alexander sued Deputy Hatfield for negligent and/or bad faith service of process.
We must first consider whether Deputy Hatfield, individually and in her official capacity, is immune from suit. If she is, then the judgment for her was proper.
A sheriff is an employee of the State and, as such, is immune from suit, in his official capacity, for negligent performance of his statutory duties. Parker v. Amerson, 519 So.2d 442 (Ala.1987); see also Wright v. Bailey, 611 So.2d 300 (Ala.1992). State officers and employees, in their official capacities and individually, also are absolutely immune from suit when the action is, in effect, one against the State. Phillips v. Thomas, 555 So.2d 81 (Ala.1989).
Parker v. Amerson, 519 So.2d 442, at 443 (Ala.1987). We have also held that deputy sheriffs are immune from suit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M.D. ex rel. Daniels v. Smith
...state officers in their official and individual capacities when "the action is, in effect one against the State." Alexander v. Hatfield, 652 So.2d 1142, 1143 (Ala.1994). An action against a sheriff or a deputy sheriff "for damages arising out of performance of his duties is `essentially a s......
-
Vinson v. Clarke County, Ala.
...have been construed by courts to extend to employees of the state, including county sheriffs and jailers. See Alexander v. Hatfield, 652 So.2d 1142, 1144 (Ala.1994) ("State officers and employees, in their official capacities and individually, also are absolutely immune from suit when the a......
-
Adams v. Franklin
...§ 14 immunity, the Eleventh Circuit noted, involves "actions brought to enjoin the sheriff's conduct."20 Id. (citing Alexander v. Hatfield, 652 So.2d 1142, 1143 (Ala.1994)). Here, like in Tinney, the relief sought by Plaintiff in alleging state-law claims against Defendants is monetary, not......
-
McMillian v. Johnson
...and is immune from suit under Article I, § 14, Alabama Constitution of 1901, in the execution of duties of his office); Alexander v. Hatfield, 652 So.2d 1142 (Ala.1994) (deputy sheriffs are immune from suit to the same extent as sheriffs). Some Alabama decisions point in the other direction......