Appeal
from Montgomery Circuit Court (CV-18-303)
MOORE,
JUDGE.
Lorenzo
Reese appeals from a judgment of the Montgomery Circuit Court
("the trial court") dismissing a complaint filed by
Reese against Leon Bolling, Angela Miree, and Antoinette
Johnson.[1] We reverse the trial court's judgment
and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
Procedural
History
On June
5, 2018, Reese filed a complaint in the trial court,
asserting, among other things, that he is a prisoner in the
Alabama Department of Corrections ("the DOC") and
is housed at the William E. Donaldson Mental Institution
("the institution"); that he has been diagnosed by
one of the DOC's health-care providers with diabetes;
that one of DOC's health-care providers had issued
medical orders requiring Bolling, a warden III supervisor at
the institution, and Miree, a warden II supervisor at the
institution, to allow Reese to receive insulin injections
before institutional special-diet meals and requiring
Johnson, the chief steward and supervisor of the kitchen at
the institution, to serve Reese institutional special-diet
meals; and that Bolling, Miree, and Johnson had failed to
comply with those medical orders. Reese also asserted in his
complaint that he had filed a request with Bolling, Miree,
and Johnson that he be provided a religious diet based on his
faith and that his request had been denied. Reese argued in
his complaint that his rights, pursuant to the Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, to receive
adequate medical treatment and medical management of his
diabetes require Bolling, Miree, and Johnson to comply with
the medical orders allowing for his insulin shots to be
administered before his meals and to provide him with
institutional special-diet meals, and, he asserted, Bolling,
Miree, and Johnson had failed to comply with those orders.
Reese also asserted that he has a right, pursuant to the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution, to be
served a diet compliant with the tenets of his faith and that
he had been denied that right by Bolling, Miree, and Johnson.
In his
prayer for relief, Reese requested compensation in the amount
of $1, 000, 000; punitive damages in the amount of $1, 000,
000; a judgment declaring and affirming that Reese's
rights under the Eighth Amendment to adequate medical
treatment and management mandate that the medical orders
issued by the DOC's health-care providers be carried out;
a judgment declaring and affirming that the failure of
Bolling, Miree, and Johnson to comply with the medical orders
is a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights; a judgment
declaring and affirming Reese's right under the First
Amendment to freely exercise his religion with regard to his
diet; a judgment declaring and affirming that the failure of
Bolling, Miree, and Johnson to allow him to eat a diet
conforming to his religious practices is a violation of the
First Amendment; an injunction enjoining Bolling, Miree, and
Johnson from failing to comply with the medical orders; and
an injunction enjoining Bolling, Miree, and Johnson from
denying Reese his right to eat a diet conforming to his
religious practices.
On
August 27, 2018, Reese filed a motion to amend his complaint,
seeking to add a count asserting that he had been subjected
to cruel and unusual punishment by Johnson, who, Reese
argued, served contaminated meals in the institution, as well
as a count asserting that additional defendants had denied
him adequate medical treatment.[2] On September 11, 2018, the trial
court entered an order setting the case for a hearing on
October 9, 2018. On October 4, 2018, Bolling, Miree, and
Johnson filed a Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion to
dismiss based on, among other things, immunity, lack of
support for certain of Reese's claims, and mootness. They
attached to their motion exhibits in support of their
assertions, including records from the DOC regarding
Reese's diet, Johnson's affidavit, and a
"steward production worksheet." On October 15,
2018, the trial court entered an order indicating, among
other things, that the matter had come before the court for a
hearing on October 9, 2018, and that it had "carefully
reviewed all pleadings and evidentiary materials" and
dismissing Reese's claims against Bolling, Miree, and
Johnson in their entirety, with prejudice.
Reese
filed a motion seeking an extension of time to file an
opposition to the motion to dismiss on October 18, 2018, in
which he asserted, among other things, that he had not
received a copy of the motion to dismiss until October 12,
2018. On November 13, 2018, Reese filed a motion to alter,
amend, or vacate the trial court's judgment, asserting,
among other things, that the trial court had erred in
dismissing the action because he had been denied the
opportunity to respond to the motion to dismiss. The trial
court entered an order denying Reese's postjudgment
motion on November 14, 2018. Reese filed his notice of appeal
to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. The Court of
Criminal Appeals transferred the appeal to the Alabama
Supreme Court, which, in turn, transferred the appeal to this
court, pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), Ala. Code 1975.
Standard
of Review
In
their brief on appeal, Bolling, Miree, and Johnson cite the
standard of review applicable to a dismissal pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P. Conversely, Reese argues on appeal
that this court must review the trial court's judgment as
though the motion to dismiss filed by Bolling, Miree, and
Johnson had been converted into a motion for a summary
judgment, pursuant to Rule 12(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., and that
the standard of review applicable to a summary judgment,
pursuant to Rule 56, Ala. R. Civ. P., should be used in the
present appeal. "In order to determine the appropriate
standard of review, we must first determine whether the
motion[] to dismiss [was] converted to [a] motion[] for a
summary judgment." Ex parte Price, 244 So.3d
949, 954 (Ala. 2017).
Analysis
Reese
argues on appeal that the trial court erred in granting the
motion to dismiss without giving him notice that the motion
had been converted into a motion for a summary judgment and
allowing him an opportunity to defend against the motion
before entering a summary judgment in favor of Bolling,
Miree, and Johnson. Bolling, Miree, and Johnson respond in
their brief to this court that the trial court's judgment
was entered pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), rather than Rule 56.
In support of their arguments that the trial court's
judgment is due to be affirmed, however, they refer in their
brief to exhibits that were attached to their motion to
dismiss. They argue that "[t]here is nothing in the
clerk's record to support" Reese's claim that
their motion to dismiss was converted into a motion for a
summary judgment. We disagree.
In its
October 15, 2018, judgment, the trial court indicated that it
had considered "all pleadings and evidentiary
materials," along with arguments of counsel. Rule 12(b),
Ala. R. Civ. P., provides, in pertinent part:
"If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to
dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are
presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall
be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as
provided in Rule 56, [Ala. R. Civ. P., ] and all parties
shall be given ...