 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
JENNINGS v. CITY OF HUNTSVILLE3/15/1996
Mike Jennings appeals from the dismissal of his action against the City of Huntsville; Steve Hettinger, mayor of the City of Huntsville; and Richard Lyles, assistant to the mayor. We affirm.
In September 1993, Jennings was arrested and charged in connection with an attempt to bribe Mayor Hettinger. In December 1992, Jennings was convicted of extortion. He served a 13-month prison sentence that began in July 1993.
In March 1995 Jennings filed this action. His complaint alleged that his arrest and conviction were the result of Hettinger and Lyles's directing Jennings's conduct during the Huntsville mayoral and city council election campaign of 1992.
Jennings alleged that the defendants 1) wrongfully interfered with his personal, business, and contractual relationships; 2) "caused" Jennings to be wrongfully arrested; 3) "caused" Jennings to be falsely imprisoned; 4) tortiously invaded Jennings's privacy by placing him in a false light; 5) slandered Jennings; 6) violated Jennings's civil rights so as to be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 7) continuously failed to retract false and misleading statements about Jennings; 8) breached a fiduciary duty to Jennings; and 9) conspired to commit all of the above.
The defendants moved the court to dismiss Jennings's complaint, alleging, among other grounds, that the applicable statute of limitations barred each of Jennings's claims; that Jennings had not satisfied the mandatory jurisdictional requirement found in Ala. Code 1975, § 11-47-192 ; and that the City of Huntsville cannot be held liable for any of the claims set out in Jennings's complaint and amended complaint. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss.
"Against [an Ala.R.Civ.P.] 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must be construed in favor of the pleader and should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond
all doubt that the plaintiff can prove no facts in support of the claim which would entitle him to relief under some legally cognizable theory. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)."
Roberts v. Meeks, 397 So.2d 111, 113 (Ala. 1981).
"Where a [Rule] 12(b)(6) motion has been granted and this Court is called upon to review the dismissal of the complaint, we must examine the allegations contained therein and construe them so as to resolve all doubts concerning the sufficiency of the complaint in favor of the plaintiff. First National Bank v. Gilbert Imported Hardwoods, Inc., 398 So.2d 258 (Ala. 1981). In so doing, this Court does not consider whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, only whether he has stated a claim under which he may possibly prevail. Karagan v. City of Mobile, 420 So.2d 57 (Ala. 1982)."
Fontenot v. Bramlett, 470 So.2d 669, 671 (Ala. 1985) (emphasis in original).
Having given Jennings's complaint every possible construction in order "to resolve all doubts concerning sufficiency in favor of [Jennings]," we must affirm the dismissal.
In his complaint, as amended, Jennings stated that the defendants' conduct upon which his allegations were based occurred during the mayoral election campaign in 1992. Jennings was arrested in September 1992 — that is the date upon which Jennings sustained the alleged injuries of which he now complains. Approximately 2 1/2 years later, on March 16, 1995, and on April 17, 1995, Jennings filed his complaint and his amended complaint.
Each of Jennings's allegations is subject to a two-year statute of limitations. Ala. Code 1975, § 6-2-38, sets out the causes of action on which an action must be brought within two years after their accrual, and we find all of Jennings's alleg
Page 1 2 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|