Langford v. Price
MEMORANDUM OPINION re Motion(s) for Summay Judgment 22 & 24 . Signed by Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn on 11/3/14. (CTS, )
2014 Nov-03 AM 09:25
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JOHN P. LANGFORD,
CHERYL PRICE, in her individual
capacity, KIM T. THOMAS, in his
official capacity as Commissioner of
The Alabama Department of
Corrections, and STATE OF
ALABAMA PERSONNEL BOARD,
Case No. 7:12-cv-2580-SLB
This case is presently pending before the court on the Motion for Summary
Judgment by Defendant Alabama State Personnel Board, (Doc. 22)1, and the ADOC
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support Thereof, (Doc. 24).
Plaintiff, John Langford, filed suit against defendants, the Alabama State Personnel
Board, Cheryl Price, in her individual capacity, and Kim Thomas, in his official capacity
as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections. (Doc. 11.) Defendants’
Motions for Summary Judgment seek judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff’s claims
under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment, plaintiff
Reference to a document number, [“Doc. ___”], refers to the number assigned to each
document as it is filed in the court’s record.
acknowledges that “Defendants’ Motions are well taken,” and states that he “cannot make
a meritorious response in opposition.” (Doc. 29.) Upon consideration of the record, the
submissions of the parties, the arguments of counsel, and the relevant law, the court is of
the opinion that defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and defendants’
Motions for Summary Judgment, (Docs. 22, 24), are due to be granted.
The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden to show the
district court that there are no genuine issues of material fact to be decided at trial.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). However, once the moving party has
met his burden, FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e) "requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the
pleadings and by . . . affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file,' designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial.'" Id. at 324. The nonmoving party need not present evidence in a form necessary for
admission at trial; however, the nonmovant may not merely rest on the pleadings. Id.
After reviewing defendants' Motions, supporting memorandum, and evidence, the
court finds that no genuine issue of material fact exists herein and defendants are entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. Defendant, Alabama State Personnel Board, is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law because plaintiff’s suit against it is barred by Eleventh
Amendment immunity and State-agent immunity and because no due process violation
occurred. Defendants, Cheryl Price and Kim Thomas, are entitled to judgment as a matter
of law because Thomas, in his official capacity, is entitled to Eleventh Amendment
immunity, Price, in her individual capacity, is entitled to qualified immunity, and no
deprivation of plaintiff’s due process rights occurred. Therefore, defendants' Motions for
Summary Judgment on plaintiff’s claims under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 are due to be granted.
An order granting defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment will be entered
contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion.
DONE this 3rd day of November, 2014.
SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?