Sweatman v. Giles
Decision Date | 19 April 2013 |
Docket Number | 2120203. |
Parties | Jason Ray SWEATMAN v. J.C. GILES and Daniel B. Rieben. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Jason Ray Sweatman, pro se.
Luther Strange, atty. gen., and Benjamin H. Albritton, asst. atty. gen., for appellees.
Jason Ray Sweatman, an inmate at Ventress Correctional Facility (“the prison”), appeals from a judgment dismissing his civil action against the warden of the prison, J.C. Giles, and the chaplain of the prison, Daniel B. Rieben.
Sweatman filed a complaint against Giles and Rieben, both individually and in their official capacities, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the complaint, Sweatman alleged that Giles had violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to enforce the prison's no-smoking policy. Specifically, Sweatman asserted that Giles “acted with deliberate indifference” by failing to enforce the prison's no-smoking policy inside the prison facility. Giles's conduct, Sweatman alleged, resulted in his near-constant exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke (“ETS”), “causing him nausea and his eyes to burn and also causing [him] to have difficulty breathing.” In the complaint, Sweatman also alleged that exposure to secondhand smoke “has been proven by medical science to cause adverse health effects including but not limited to cancer
, heart disease, and etc.”
Sweatman asserted that Rieben had violated his First Amendment rights. Sweatman alleged that Rieben “governed” the prison's “honor dorm,” where, he said, the prison's no-smoking policy was “halfway” enforced.1 Sweatman further alleged that any inmate residing in the honor dorm was required to attend at least one religious service a month. Such a requirement, Sweatman alleged, violated his rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
As relief, Sweatman sought an injunction ordering Giles and Rieben, among other things, to provide a nonsmoking dorm without imposing “religious requirements”; to provide designated smoking areas for both inmates and correctional officers; to prohibit smoking near the health-care unit, the “chow line,” and the “pill line”; and to strictly enforce the prison's no-smoking policy. He also sought monetary damages.
Giles and Rieben filed a motion to dismiss Sweatman's complaint or, alternatively, for a summary judgment. In their motion, they asserted that Sweatman had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and they claimed that they were entitled to various forms of immunity. No evidentiary submission was filed in support of their motion.
On November 25, 2012, the Barbour Circuit Court (“the trial court”) dismissed the action “pursuant to Rule 12(b) [, Ala. R. Civ. P.].” Sweatman appealed the judgment to the Alabama Supreme Court, which transferred the appeal to this court, pursuant to § 12–2–7(6), Ala.Code 1976.
In his brief to this court, Sweatman contends that the trial court improperly dismissed the action on the ground of immunity. As mentioned, in his complaint Sweatman asserted claims against Giles and Rieben in both their official and their individual capacities, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute provides, in pertinent part:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in any action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress....”
Giles and Rieben asserted in their motion to dismiss, and assert in their brief on appeal, that, as state employees, they are entitled to sovereign immunity. Although they did not explicitly assert qualified immunity, we discuss its application in this case out of an abundance of caution. In Watkins v. Mitchem, 50 So.3d 485 (Ala.Civ.App.2010), this court addressed the application of sovereign immunity and qualified immunity to state employees in the context of § 1983 actions, stating:
As was the case in Watkins, Sweatman's complaint asserted only federal-law claims; therefore, the trial court could not have properly dismissed the claims against Giles and Rieben, named in their...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McConico v. Patterson
...discovery.’ Ex parte Alabama Dep't of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 837 So.2d 808, 813–14 (Ala.2002)."Sweatman v. Giles, 161 So.3d 212, 218 (Ala.Civ.App.2013). In Ryan v. Hayes, 831 So.2d 21, 32 (Ala.2002), our supreme court pointed out that " ‘[i]t is the rare case involving the defe......
-
D.I. v. I.G.
...The fact that an appellant raises a constitutional issue does not preclude application of Rule 28(a)(10). See Sweatman v. Giles, 161 So.3d 212, 221 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013) (rejecting an argument that an inmate's First Amendment rights had been violated when the brief cited only the First Amen......
- Daniel Senior Living of Inverness I, LLC v. STV One Nineteen Senior Living, LLC (Ex parte STV One Nineteen Senior Living, LLC)