Williams v. Davis

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtTORBERT
Citation386 So.2d 415
PartiesStanley Lee WILLIAMS and Johnny R. Null v. J. O. DAVIS, et al. 79-636.
Decision Date27 June 1980

Page 415

386 So.2d 415
Stanley Lee WILLIAMS and Johnny R. Null
v.
J. O. DAVIS, et al.
79-636.
Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 27, 1980.
Rehearing Denied July 25, 1980.

Page 416

George K. Elbrecht, Monroeville, for appellants.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Jack M. Curtis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.

TORBERT, Chief Justice.

Petition of Stanley Lee Williams and Johnny R. Null for writs of habeas corpus (Count I) and injunctive and declaratory relief (Count II) was filed in the Circuit Court of Escambia County. The petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied and dismissed by the Escambia Circuit Court on December 17, 1979. Motions for change of venue were granted on the same day and venue transferred to Montgomery County; thereafter, the Circuit Court of Montgomery County dismissed the claim (Count II) for injunctive and declaratory relief. Petitioners appealed from the orders of both courts to the Court of Civil Appeals, which appeals were transferred to this Court.

Neither the order of the Escambia Circuit Court nor the order of the Montgomery Circuit Court contained findings of facts. The only statement of facts before this Court is found in the allegations contained in the sworn pleadings of Stanley Lee Williams and Johnny R. Null.

Stanley Lee Williams alleges that he is an inmate in the G. K. Fountain Correctional Center in Atmore, Alabama. Petitioner Williams alleges that on or about June 22, 1979, his status as a prisoner was that of Community I (IGT). In this status he was receiving two days' credit for every one day he actually served in the prison, the extra credit called "good time." In this status, with "good time" credit, petitioner Williams was scheduled to be released from the prison system August 19, 1979. On June 22, 1979, petitioner Williams was charged with the violation of prison Rule II-B-7 of the Handbook of Rules and Information for Inmates. Prisoner alleges that he was deprived of his liberty without due process of law as the result of the disciplinary hearing in that he designated one Jerry Dugger as a witness he wanted to testify on his behalf at the disciplinary hearing and prison officials denied his request to call Mr. Dugger as a witness. Mr. Dugger was a civilian employer in the Loxley area who employed and supervised petitioner Williams and others located at the Loxley Work Release Center. Petitioner alleges that the attendance of Mr. Dugger at the disciplinary hearing would not have been unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals. As a result of the guilty finding, petitioner was removed from IGT status, certain "good time" was taken away from him, and petitioner was therefore not released on August 19, 1979 as scheduled.

Petitioner Johnny Null alleges that he is an inmate in the G. K. Fountain Correctional Center in Atmore, Alabama, and that on or about August 24, 1979, he was receiving IGT "good time" in his status as a Community I prisoner. Petitioner Null alleges that he had an IGT release date of June 11, 1980. Petitioner alleges that he was charged with the violation of prison Rule II-B-1c of the Handbook of Rules and Information for

Page 417

Inmates. Petitioner Null alleges that he filed a timely written request for documentary evidence on August 13, 1979, and again on August 24, 1979, and petitioner alleges that both requests were denied. Petitioner Null alleges that he designated as witnesses John Gardner (a correctional counselor) and Betty Carr (secretary for the director of the Work Release Center). Petitioner alleges that these witnesses could present relevant evidence which would aid the petitioner in his defense and that petitioner's request for these two witnesses was denied. Petitioner alleges that the attendance of John Gardner and Betty Carr at petitioner's disciplinary hearing would not have been unduly hazardous to the institutional safety or correctional goals. Petitioner Null alleges that as the result of the guilty finding at the disciplinary hearing, he was removed from his IGT status and therefore, petitioner Null would not be released on his IGT release date of June 11, 1980.

Count II of the complaint of petitioners Williams and Null is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Mr. J. O. Davis; Governor Forrest "Fob" James; Mr. R. G. Britton, Commissioner, Board of Corrections; and Mr. Andrew Cooper, Deputy Commissioner, Board of Corrections, in their official capacities, deprived them of constitutional rights under color of state law.

I. THE § 1983 ACTION

Count II of the petitioners' complaint is without merit because the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 practice notes
  • Foremost Ins. Co. v. Parham
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 14, 1997
    ...transactions. The 'reliance' element in fraud actions based on commercial transactions remained as it had been since Bedwell Lumber, 386 So.2d at 415: Page " '[T]he representee's reliance must be reasonable under the circumstances; and, where a party has reason to doubt the truth of the rep......
  • Mitchem v. Melton, No. 15136
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • May 12, 1981
    ...Other state courts have permitted a § 1983 action to be utilized to challenge conditions of confinement. E. g., Williams v. Davis, 386 So.2d 415 (Ala.1980); Brown v. [167 W.Va. 26] Pitchess, 13 Cal.3d 518, 531 P.2d 772, 119 Cal.Rptr. 204 (1975); Wesson v. Johnson, 195 Colo. 521, 579 P.2d 11......
  • Kaye v. Pawnee Const. Co., Inc., No. 81-7304
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • July 22, 1982
    ...that, if pursued, would lead to knowledge of other facts operates as constructive knowledge of the other facts. Bedwell Lumber Co., 386 So.2d at 415. This overview states enough Alabama law to permit us to review this case. Appellant has not set out clearly and specifically what he consider......
  • Gold Standard, Inc. v. Getty Oil Co., No. 940234
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • January 11, 1996
    ...of a representation or is informed of the truth before he acts, he has no right to act on it." Kaye, 680 F.2d at 1367 (citing Bedwell, 386 So.2d at 415). Likewise, in Russell, the court held, "Any oral representations ... were superseded by the subsequent writing and provide no basis for re......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
41 cases
  • Foremost Ins. Co. v. Parham
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 14, 1997
    ...transactions. The 'reliance' element in fraud actions based on commercial transactions remained as it had been since Bedwell Lumber, 386 So.2d at 415: Page " '[T]he representee's reliance must be reasonable under the circumstances; and, where a party has reason to doubt the truth of the rep......
  • Mitchem v. Melton, No. 15136
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • May 12, 1981
    ...Other state courts have permitted a § 1983 action to be utilized to challenge conditions of confinement. E. g., Williams v. Davis, 386 So.2d 415 (Ala.1980); Brown v. [167 W.Va. 26] Pitchess, 13 Cal.3d 518, 531 P.2d 772, 119 Cal.Rptr. 204 (1975); Wesson v. Johnson, 195 Colo. 521, 579 P.2d 11......
  • Kaye v. Pawnee Const. Co., Inc., No. 81-7304
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • July 22, 1982
    ...that, if pursued, would lead to knowledge of other facts operates as constructive knowledge of the other facts. Bedwell Lumber Co., 386 So.2d at 415. This overview states enough Alabama law to permit us to review this case. Appellant has not set out clearly and specifically what he consider......
  • Gold Standard, Inc. v. Getty Oil Co., No. 940234
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • January 11, 1996
    ...of a representation or is informed of the truth before he acts, he has no right to act on it." Kaye, 680 F.2d at 1367 (citing Bedwell, 386 So.2d at 415). Likewise, in Russell, the court held, "Any oral representations ... were superseded by the subsequent writing and provide no basis for re......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT