William Keith Watkins

This case involves a premises liability claim brought by plaintiff Cook against Wal-Mart after she slipped and fell on a banana peel in the store's parking lot. Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish the store had actual or constructive notice of the hazard. The court applied federal summary judgment standards under Rule 56 and Alabama substantive law on premises liability, noting that while evidence of constructive notice was thin, disputes of material fact remained that could allow a reasonable jury to find for the plaintiff. The court therefore denied the motion, concluding that the better course was to proceed to trial rather than resolve the notice issue on the existing record.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Eddie D. Powell, an Alabama death row inmate scheduled for execution, filed a § 1983 action alleging that the Alabama Department of Corrections' switch from sodium thiopental to pentobarbital as the first drug in its lethal injection protocol violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the action was barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to § 1983 claims. The court determined that the limitations period had begun to run before Powell filed his complaint, based on the timing of the protocol change and prior related litigation.

criminal lawprocedure

In Powell v. Thomas, death row inmate Jason Oric Williams intervened in an existing case to seek a stay of his May 19, 2011 execution, challenging only Alabama's substitution of pentobarbital for sodium thiopental as the first drug in the three-drug lethal injection protocol under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court granted intervention but denied the stay motion. Williams did not contest his death sentence or lethal injection as a method but claimed insufficient assurance of constitutional compliance with the new drug. The court held that Williams failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, that the claim was filed too late to allow full consideration without a stay, and that equitable factors including the state's interest in enforcing its judgments weighed against relief.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involves a patent infringement dispute in which Johnson Outdoors sued Navico for allegedly infringing four patents related to boat-mounted side-scan sonar imaging systems used to locate fish and underwater structures. Navico filed affirmative defenses and counterclaims seeking declarations of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability, asserting that Johnson Outdoors engaged in inequitable conduct by making material misrepresentations and withholding information from the PTO during patent prosecution. Johnson Outdoors moved to strike and dismiss certain defenses and counterclaims, arguing they failed to meet the particularity requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding that some inequitable conduct allegations lacked the required specificity while others—particularly those involving prior art references on towfish and boat-mounted transducers—were sufficiently pleaded under controlling Federal Circuit standards.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

In Lewis v. Blue, plaintiff Cynthia Lewis sued Deputy Jason Blue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he used excessive force during her arrest and conducted an unlawful search and seizure in her home in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court granted the deputy’s motion for summary judgment after reviewing the record, finding no genuine issues of material fact that would preclude judgment as a matter of law under the standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The decision rested on the conclusion that the deputy’s actions during the arrest and any subsequent entry were consistent with applicable Fourth Amendment principles, including consent doctrines such as those in United States v. Matlock, and that the plaintiff had not produced sufficient evidence to support her claims.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Thomas Entrekin as executor of Edith Entrekin's estate against medical providers and a nursing home, alleging negligence in altering her Coumadin medication regimen after her heart attack, which led to inadequate anticoagulation, a fatal blood clot, and her death in June 2008. Defendants moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act based on a dispute resolution agreement containing an arbitration clause that Mrs. Entrekin had signed upon admission to the facility, arguing it covered claims by her estate and personal representative. The court denied the motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, holding that Alabama's wrongful death statute vests the cause of action solely in the personal representative and that the decedent never possessed or could have possessed such a claim, so she lacked authority to bind the executor to arbitration. The executor had not signed the agreement in any capacity, and arbitration requires consent by the party to be bound.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

In this case, plaintiff Pamela Borton sued Dothan police officers Jeff Schulmerich and Jason Weed, police chief John Powell, and the City of Dothan after Officer Schulmerich allegedly tased her three times while she was strapped to a gurney during an involuntary ambulance transport for mental health treatment, with Officer Weed present. Borton asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of her Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment rights, along with related state-law claims such as assault and battery. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding genuine issues of material fact on the individual-capacity excessive-force claims against the officers (including denial of qualified immunity) while resolving other claims, such as certain official-capacity and municipal-liability theories, in the defendants' favor.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

In Taunton v. GenPak LLC, two full-time maintenance employees sued their plastics-manufacturing employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1), seeking overtime compensation solely for the hours they spent on call away from the plant but were never called in to work. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment after finding no genuine issues of material fact. The court reasoned that the on-call arrangement imposed only minimal restrictions on the employees’ personal activities, that they were summoned infrequently, and that they received overtime pay when actually required to report, so the time did not qualify as compensable work under the FLSA.

labor & employment

The case involved defendants charged with possession of a firearm by a felon and manufacturing marijuana plants. Law enforcement officers, acting on an anonymous tip, entered the defendants' fenced backyard without a warrant, discovered marijuana plants, and used that evidence to obtain a search warrant for the house, leading to seizure of additional items. The court granted the defendants' motions to suppress all evidence from the searches, holding that the backyard was curtilage entitled to Fourth Amendment protection and that the officers' warrantless entry was unreasonable absent any exception to the warrant requirement.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

This case concerns nonprofit charities that operated or sought to operate bingo games in Macon County, Alabama, suing Sheriff Warren, VictoryLand, and others over amended rules and licensing practices that required existing facilities and limited the number of Class B licenses. Plaintiffs asserted RICO claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d) based on alleged bribery and honest-services mail/wire fraud, equal-protection claims under § 1983 alleging disparate treatment and class-of-one discrimination, conspiracy claims, and state-law tortious-interference claims. In this memorandum opinion addressing cross-motions for summary judgment, the court examines jurisdiction, the factual background of successive rule changes favoring an incumbent operator, the elements of the RICO predicates, rational-basis review of the regulatory requirements, the “similarly situated” comparator showing needed for equal-protection claims, legislative and qualified immunity, standing, statutes of limitations, and the tortious-interference elements. The opinion applies governing standards to each count without reaching every alternative argument once a dispositive ground is identified.

criminal lawcivil rightsbusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case arose from plaintiffs Dr. Larry Camp and Sabrina Martindale's claims that Correctional Medical Services, Inc. and Alabama Department of Corrections officials retaliated against them by failing to hire or retain them for dental positions at a state prison after they complained about a supervisor's alleged improper sterilization practices and other ethical violations. The plaintiffs asserted First Amendment retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 along with related state-law claims. The court denied Camp's motion for partial summary judgment on his § 1983 claims, granted CMS's motion for summary judgment on all claims against it, and granted in part and denied in part the ADOC defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing some claims against certain defendants while allowing others to proceed. The core reasoning centered on the sufficiency of evidence regarding causation, protected speech, and qualified immunity issues under the summary judgment standards, including assessments of affidavits and deposition testimony for credibility and factual disputes.

free speechcivil rightslabor & employment

In United States v. Osborne, the defendant was detained after being found with stolen mail and interviewed by police and a postal inspector; he was Mirandized, made statements, and gave written consent to searches of his apartment and computer. The court addressed his motion to suppress certain statements and evidence, focusing on whether statements were involuntary due to officers' assurances that he would not go to jail if he told the truth. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted the motion in part, suppressing statements elicited by the impermissible promise as involuntary under the Fifth Amendment, while denying suppression of other statements and the search evidence obtained via valid consent. The reasoning centered on the totality of circumstances showing coercion for the suppressed statements, contrasted with the voluntary nature of the consent forms and remaining admissions.

criminal lawprocedure

In Dunklin v. Montgomery County Board of Education, former employee Dimetris Dunklin, who is Black, sued the Board under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging racial discrimination in two denied promotions—to Lead PC Technician/Assistant Network Specialist in May 2004 and to Network Administrator in fall 2004—in favor of white candidates. The district court addressed the Board's motion for summary judgment after applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to assess whether Dunklin established a prima facie case and whether the Board's stated reasons for the decisions were pretextual. The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing the May 2004 claim because Dunklin failed to show that the selected candidate's qualifications or the decision process raised a genuine issue of pretext. It denied summary judgment in part on the fall 2004 claims, finding sufficient evidence of pretext, including disparities in qualifications, the decision-maker's personal knowledge of the selected candidate, and inconsistencies in the hiring explanations, to create triable issues of fact.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case was a declaratory judgment action brought by Fire Insurance Exchange against its policyholder Jeffrey McCoy to determine whether the insurer had a duty to defend or indemnify him under a homeowners policy in a state-court lawsuit stemming from a dog bite that injured a 12-year-old guest at McCoy's home. After a bench trial, the court held that McCoy's notice to the insurer more than fourteen months after the incident was untimely and that he had no reasonable excuse for the delay under Alabama law, where prompt notice is a condition precedent to coverage. The court therefore ruled that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify McCoy. The court also dismissed McCoy's counterclaim for bad-faith breach of contract because the insurer had no contractual obligations due to the late notice.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved plaintiff Jan Byrne, a longtime employee of the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, who brought claims against the Board for gender discrimination through disparate treatment and hostile work environment, as well as retaliation, all under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and against the Board's administrator Emory Folmar individually and officially for violating her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The dispute arose from workplace conflicts, including grievances filed by and against Byrne, performance evaluations, and various employment actions such as reprimands and restrictions on travel or speaking engagements. After narrowing the claims in a prior ruling, the court considered the defendants' motion for summary judgment supported by evidence and briefs. The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and determining that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all remaining claims.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Darryl Pierrie Hall, who was convicted in Alabama state court as a fifteen-year-old for robbery and kidnapping arising from his alleged role in a violent incident at a day care center. Hall challenged his convictions on grounds including an allegedly coerced confession obtained without his parents present, ineffective assistance of counsel, and other trial irregularities that led to two prior mistrials and acquittals on some charges. The magistrate judge recommended denying relief, and after de novo review of Hall's objections, the district court adopted that recommendation. The court held that, despite concerns about the trial's fairness, the deferential standards of review, principles of comity, and limitations in § 2254 precluded granting the petition absent clear, discrete errors warranting relief.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an insurance coverage dispute in which State Farm sought a declaratory judgment that its personal liability umbrella policy provided no duty to indemnify the Myricks for a $125,000 settlement they paid to resolve state-court claims of undue influence, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty brought by Margaret Martin. The Myricks counterclaimed for breach of contract, bad faith, and breach of the enhanced obligation of good faith, alleging State Farm wrongfully refused to participate in or fund the settlement. The court granted State Farm’s motion for summary judgment on all counterclaims, denied the Myricks’ motion for partial summary judgment on the breach-of-contract count, and entered judgment for State Farm. The decision rested on the absence of a contractual duty to pay under the policy for the underlying claims, which precluded both the contract claim and the derivative bad-faith claims.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

In Ogletree v. City of Auburn, two African-American lieutenants in the city's fire division sued the municipality and various officials, claiming they were denied promotion to battalion chief in 2006 because of race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause, and that the written examination's minimum passing score had a disparate impact on African-American candidates. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. It found that the plaintiffs had not raised a genuine issue of material fact, as the city demonstrated the promotions went to those who passed the exam and the plaintiffs failed to show the exam requirement was a pretext for discrimination, lacked job-relatedness under the business-necessity standard, or stemmed from retaliatory motive.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case concerned defendant Christopher C. Dean, who was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2250 with failing to register as a sex offender after relocating across multiple states following a 1994 Minnesota conviction for criminal sexual conduct. Dean moved to dismiss the indictment, raising challenges including that SORNA did not apply to pre-enactment offenders, lacked required Attorney General regulations, and violated the Ex Post Facto Clause, Due Process Clause, nondelegation doctrine, and Commerce Clause. The district court denied the motion after de novo review, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and holding that SORNA applies to Dean, is constitutional, and that its registration requirements are a valid means for Congress to regulate the interstate movement of sex offenders under its Commerce Clause authority.

criminal lawfederal power

In Cornelius v. City of Andalusia, plaintiff Randy Cornelius sued private citizen Andy Willis and game warden Officer Keith Kipp after an encounter on November 13, 2004, in which Willis blocked Cornelius's vehicle while he was returning from bow hunting on leased land, then called Officer Kipp, leading to a police stop inside city limits where Cornelius was ordered out of his car at gunpoint, handcuffed, questioned about poaching, and had his vehicle searched with flashlights before being released after about fifteen to twenty minutes once the lease was confirmed. The district court granted summary judgment to both defendants on Cornelius's claims. The court reasoned that the stop was justified by reasonable suspicion of illegal night hunting, the detention was not unreasonably prolonged by questioning on related matters, and the limited search was permissible for officer safety under Terry stop principles in a rural nighttime setting with potential weapons involved.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure