Galloway v. City of Abbeville, Alabama et al

Filing 37

ORDER that Galloway's Motion for Reconsideration 33 is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 7/23/2012. (jg, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION BRYSON GALLOWAY, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:11-cv-663-MEF (WO) JOHN K. BABINSKI, et al., Defendants. O RDER After the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing some of Bryson Galloway’s claims (ECF No. 32), Galloway filed a Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 33). In his motion, Galloway argues that the Court improperly dismissed his state law claims against one of the defendants, John Duhaime, because he only conceded that the claims should have been dismissed against one of the other defendants, the City of Abbeville. From there he asks the Court to reinstate the state law claims against Duhaime. Galloway is correct that he did not explicitly concede the state law claims against Duhaime like he did with the City. But he failed to contest the sovereign immunity arguments raised by Duhaime in his motion to dismiss. Thus he abandoned those claims. And either way, Alabama’s Constitution grants Duhaime absolute immunity from suit 1 under state law. Ala. Const. of 1901, art. 1, § 14; Ex parte Davis, 930 So. 2d 497, 500 (Ala. 2005) (dismissing state law claims against sheriff’s deputy based on absolute immunity granted in Alabama Constitution). So even if the state law claims against Duhaime were dismissed for the wrong reason (which is arguable since he implicitly conceded the point by not addressing Duhaime’s arguments), they were still properly dismissed. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Galloway’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 33) is DENIED. rd Done this the 23 day of July, 2012. /s/ Mark E. Fuller UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?