Knight v. City of Ozark

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-15508 APR 25, 2011
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 1:09-cv-01148-MEF-WC
JANICE KNIGHT, As Administratrix of the
Estate of Charles Knight, deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CITY OF OZARK,
JIMMY CULBREATH,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
(April 25, 2011)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This case arose out of a high-speed police chase of a vehicle driven by a
suspected drug trafficker whom the police were trying to arrest. Both vehicles
were traveling on the wrong side of the road, and the suspect’s vehicle struck head
on a vehicle driven by plaintiff’s decedent, causing his death. Plaintiff, in her
representative capacity, brought a multi-count complaint against, among others,
the City of Ozark and Ozark Police Sergeant Culbreath for damages and other
relief, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for the violation of the decedent’s rights under the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, Counts I and II, and for the violation of the
decedent’s rights under Alabama tort law, Counts VII, VIII, XI, and XII. This
interlocutory appeal by the City and Culbreath relates to these tort law counts.
The City and Culbreath moved to dismiss the § 1983 claims and the tort law
claims for failure to state a claim for relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). They also
sought dismissal of the tort law claims on grounds of immunity—the City claiming
immunity under Ala. Code § 11-47-190 (municipal immunity) and Culbreath
claiming immunity under Ala. Code § 6-5-338 (state-agent immunity). The
district court, in an order dated November 22, 2010, granted their motions to
dismiss the § 1983 claims, and, without mentioning the immunity defenses, ruled
that the tort law claims against the City and Culbreath would be “best resolved at
summary judgment or trial.” Order at 12. The City and Culbreath are entitled to a
2
ruling on their motions to dismiss based on the immunity grounds. We therefore
vacate the district court’s order—to the extend that it deals with the tort law
claims—and remand the case for such ruling.
VACATED and REMANDED.
3