Sherrie Johnson v. Ryan Conner, 720 F.3d 1311

In June 2011, Alquwon Johnson committed suicide while in custody at Barbour County Jail; his mother (Sherrie Johnson) sued jail personnel and county entities alleging failure to take precautions after a prior suicide attempt.
Defendants (Conner, Mayo, Parham) moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting qualified immunity for federal claims and Alabama state immunity under Ala. Code § 14-6-1 for state wrongful-death claims.
The district court denied application of § 14-6-1 immunity, reasoning the 2011 amendment (effective June 14, 2011) did not apply to conduct occurring before its effective date.
Defendants appealed the denial of state immunity; the Eleventh Circuit found unsettled questions of Alabama law and certified two questions to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
Central legal disputes: (1) whether § 14-6-1 immunity applies to suits filed after the amendment when the alleged conduct predated the amendment; and (2) whether the statutory requirement that jailers act "in compliance with the law" for immunity covers only criminal-law violations or all violations of Alabama law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 14-6-1 immunity applies when conduct occurred before amendment but suit filed after effective date	Johnson: statute is silent on retroactivity; presumptively prospective, so immunity does not apply to pre-amendment conduct	Defs: amendment divested state courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over claims filed after effective date, so immunity applies regardless of when conduct occurred	Eleventh Circuit certified the question to Alabama Supreme Court (no final answer); district court had denied immunity as prospective only
Scope of "in compliance with the law" requirement for immunity	Johnson: jailers have statutory duties (e.g., provide medicines/medical care) so noncompliance with those duties defeats immunity; phrase should cover all Alabama-law violations	Defs: phrase should be read narrowly to mean criminal-law violations only; otherwise immunity would be meaningless	Question certified to Alabama Supreme Court for authoritative interpretation

McMillian v. Monroe Cnty., 520 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1997) (Alabama sheriffs performing law enforcement duties represent the State)
Parker v. Amerson, 519 So. 2d 442 (Ala. 1987) (sheriff is an executive officer immune under Ala. Const. art. I, § 14)
Ex parte Shelley, 53 So. 3d 887 (Ala. 2009) (constitutional immunity for sheriffs/deputies did not extend to jailers prior to 2011 amendment)
Ex parte Bonner, 676 So. 2d 925 (Ala. 1995) (statutes presumptively prospective absent clear legislative intent)
Ex parte Burnell, 90 So. 3d 708 (Ala. 2012) (2011 amendments held not applicable in that case; distinguished by timing here)