Ex parte Danny Rogers PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: United Services Automobile Association v. Jefferson County Sheriff's Office) (Jefferson Circuit Court: CV-23-903923).

• Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
• Decided: April 11, 2025
• Docket: CL-2025-0133
• Status: Published

Opinion

Rel: April 11, 2025

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2024-2025 _________________________

CL-2025-0133 _________________________

Ex parte Danny Rogers

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(In re: United Services Automobile Association

v.

Jefferson County Sheriff's Office)

(Jefferson Circuit Court: CV-23-903923)

MOORE, Presiding Judge.

Danny Rogers petitions this court to issue a writ of mandamus to

the Jefferson Circuit Court ("the circuit court") directing it to dismiss the

underlying action. We grant the petition. CL-2025-0133

Background

On November 1, 2023, respondent United Services Automobile

Association ("USAA"), as subrogee of Stella Grenier, filed a complaint

against only the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office ("the JCSO"). In the

complaint, USAA alleged that Rogers, while acting in the line and scope

of his employment as a deputy for the JCSO, had negligently operated

the motor vehicle that he had been driving so as to cause it to collide with

a motor vehicle that was owned by Grenier and was insured by USAA.

USAA sought an amount less than $50,000 for the damages caused to

Grenier's vehicle.

On November 20, 2023, the JCSO filed a motion to dismiss for

failure of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief could be

granted against a proper legal entity. See Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P.

On November 25, 2023, USAA filed an amended complaint naming

Rogers as an additional defendant and asserting that the JCSO was

liable for the property damage to Grenier's vehicle pursuant to the theory

of respondeat superior. On November 27, 2023, the JCSO filed a second

motion to dismiss, asserting, in addition to the previously stated ground,

that Rogers and the JCSO were immune from suit under the doctrine of 2 CL-2025-0133

sovereign immunity. See Ala. Const. 2022, Art. I, § 14 ("That the State

of Alabama shall never be made a defendant in any court of law or

equity."). On November 8, 2023, after USAA filed a motion to the dismiss

the JCSO without prejudice, the circuit court entered an order dismissing

the JCSO as a party to the action, leaving Rogers as the sole defendant.

On January 8, 2024, after Rogers was served with the complaint,

he filed a motion to dismiss based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

On September 23, 2024, USAA, with the permission of the circuit court,

filed a second amended complaint, deleting the claims against the JCSO

and the claim that Rogers had been acting in the line and scope of his

employment at the time of the motor-vehicle accident. On September 25,

2024, Rogers filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. In

that motion, Rogers asserted that the original complaint filed by USAA

had not invoked the subject-matter jurisdiction of the circuit court and

that all subsequent pleadings were therefore void. See Double B Country

Store, LLC v. Alabama Dep't of Transp., 171 So. 3d 28 (Ala. Civ. App.

2015). Rogers also asserted that the negligence claim against him was

barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. On December 20, 2024,

the circuit court denied Rogers's motion to dismiss. On January 17, 2025, 3 CL-2025-0133

Rogers timely filed this petition for the writ of mandamus with the

Alabama Supreme Court, which transferred the petition to this court.

See Ala. Code 1975, § 12-1-4.

Issue

Rogers argues that the circuit court erred in not dismissing the

second amended complaint because, he says, (1) the original complaint

did not invoke the subject-matter jurisdiction of the circuit court, and,

thus, all subsequent amendments were void, and (2) the second amended

complaint was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. We find the

first argument dispositive of this appeal, so we do not address the second

argument.

Standard of Review

A petition for the writ of mandamus is an appropriate vehicle for

reviewing an adverse ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-

matter jurisdiction. See Ex parte Vega-Lopez, 297 So. 3d 1273 (Ala. Civ.

App. 2019).

"Mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ, to be issued only where there is (1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of

4 CL-2025-0133

another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court."

Ex parte Integon Corp., 672 So. 2d 497, 499 (Ala. 1995).

Analysis

In the original complaint, USAA named only the JCSO as a

defendant. Under Alabama law, a sheriff's department or sheriff's office

is not a legal entity subject to suit. See Ex parte Haralson, 853 So. 2d

928, 931 (Ala. 2003) ("It is clear under Alabama law that the sheriff's

department is not a legal entity subject to suit."). A complaint against a

nonentity is a nullity that does not invoke the subject-matter jurisdiction

of the circuit court. See Maclin v. Congo, 106 So. 3d 405, 408 (Ala. Civ.

App. 2012) (holding that complaint that was filed against deceased

person did not invoke jurisdiction of court). "Where a suit is brought

against an entity which is legally nonexistent, the proceeding is void ab

initio ...." Oliver v. Swiss Club Tell, 222 Cal. App. 2d 528, 537, 35 Cal.

Rptr. 324, 329 (Ct. App. 1963). The circuit court "had no jurisdiction to

entertain an amendment of the complaint or any further motions or

pleadings; it was required to dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter

5 CL-2025-0133

jurisdiction." Maclin, 106 So. 3d at 408 (citing Ex parte Owens, 65 So. 3d

953, 955-56 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010)).

Because the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, Rogers

had a clear legal right to a dismissal of the action. The circuit court

refused to perform its mandatory duty to dismiss the action when it

denied Rogers's second motion to dismiss. Rogers has no other adequate

remedy to redress that error, and he has properly invoked the jurisdiction

of this court. Therefore, we grant the petition for the writ of mandamus

and direct the circuit court to vacate its December 20, 2024, order

denying the motion to dismiss and to enter a new order granting the

motion.

PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.

Edwards, Hanson, Fridy, and Lewis, JJ., concur.