204 So. 3d 409
Ala. Civ. App.2016Background
- McConico worked ~10 years as municipal-court magistrate for Leeds; placed on administrative leave Aug 10, 2008 after audits allegedly showing $94,861.72 missing; terminated Sept 11, 2009.
- Criminal charges (including second-degree theft) were filed against McConico Apr 1, 2010; charges were non-prossed/dismissed May 23, 2013.
- McConico filed this civil suit Sept 30, 2014 against former mayor Eric Patterson and Jefferson County DA Brandon Falls (individual capacities) alleging negligence/malice, wrongful death (unborn child), malicious prosecution, libel/defamation, and conspiracy; sought compensatory and punitive damages.
- Defendants moved to dismiss as time-barred; trial court dismissed all claims (noting grand-jury indictment defeated malicious-prosecution claim). McConico appealed; the Supreme Court transferred the appeal here.
- On reconsideration, the court examined whether dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was proper and whether various immunity doctrines or statutes of limitations barred particular claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was malicious-prosecution claim properly dismissed despite grand-jury indictment? | McConico: indictment presumption of probable cause can be rebutted; she alleged misconduct inducing indictment and was entitled to attempt to rebut. | Patterson/Falls: grand-jury indictment is prima facie evidence of probable cause, so malicious-prosecution fails. | Reversed dismissal as to malicious prosecution; indictment does not automatically preclude plaintiff at pleading stage because inducement by fraud/subornation etc. may be alleged. |
| Did malicious-prosecution claim accrue and become time-barred? | McConico: claim timely filed within limitations after criminal dismissal. | Defendants: (argued time-bar) | Held claim accrued when the criminal case was non-prossed (May 23, 2013); two‑year limitations applied; McConico filed within two years, so timely. |
| Are immunity defenses (state/State-agent/prosecutorial) grounds to affirm dismissal on appeal? | McConico: sued Falls in individual capacity; alleged malicious/illegal conduct so immunity inapplicable. | Falls (raised on rehearing): asserted state immunity, State‑agent (qualified) immunity, and prosecutorial immunity. | Court: state (sovereign) immunity does not shield individual-capacity malicious conduct; qualified/state-agent immunity and prosecutorial immunity were not properly raised below and are premature to decide on Rule 12(b)(6); cannot affirm dismissal on those grounds now. |
| Were negligence/malice, libel/defamation, conspiracy, and wrongful-death claims time-barred or tolled? | McConico: equitable tolling or savings clause (§ 6-2-3) should toll limitations while criminal case pending; fetus should invoke minors’ tolling for wrongful death. | Defendants: claims expired two years after indictment (Apr 1, 2010) and plaintiff waited until 2014; no factual basis for tolling or savings clause. | Affirmed dismissal of those claims: equitable tolling not supported by authority or facts; fraudulent concealment inadequately pleaded; wrongful-death claim time-barred under statute of creation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walter Energy, Inc. v. Audley Capital Advisors LLP, 176 So.3d 821 (Ala. 2015) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard; pleadings must be viewed most favorably to pleader)
- Eidson v. Olin Corp., 527 So.2d 1283 (Ala. 1988) (elements of malicious prosecution)
- Alabama Power Co. v. Neighbors, 402 So.2d 958 (Ala. 1981) (grand-jury indictment is prima facie evidence of probable cause)
- National Security Fire & Casualty Co. v. Bowen, 447 So.2d 133 (Ala. 1983) (indictment presumption may be rebutted if induced by fraud, subornation, or suppression)
- Barrett Mobile Home Transport, Inc. v. McGugin, 530 So.2d 730 (Ala. 1988) (malicious-prosecution action accrues when appeal period expires or appeal finally decided)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1976) (absolute prosecutorial immunity for functions intimately associated with judicial phase of prosecution)
- Ex parte Cranman, 792 So.2d 392 (Ala. 2000) (state‑actor immunity framework)