Jenkins, etc. v. City of Birmingham, et al., [Ms. SC-2023-0304, Dec. 20, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. Civ. App. 2024). The Court (Bryan, J.; Shaw, Wise, Sellers, Mendheim, Stewart, Mitchell, and Cook, JJ., concur; Parker, C.J., dissents) dismisses the personal representative’s appeal of the dismissal of a wrongful death action filed by William Jenkins, as the personal representative of the estate of Carl Grant, an elderly Vietnam War Veteran who allegedly died as a result of the use of alleged excessive force by Birmingham Police Officer Vincent Larry. Jenkins commenced this action on July 18, 2022, against Larry, and various City of Birmingham officials asserting “the following counts: (1) municipal liability, (2) negligence/wantonness, (3) battery, (4) wrongful death, and (5) negligent training/supervision. Jenkins sued all the named defendants in both their official and individual capacities.” Ms. *3.
The Court notes the circuit court’s February 22, 2023, order “stated: ‘It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the [d]efendants’ [m]otion for [a s]ummary [j]udgment is hereby GRANTED; and, any and all claims asserted by [Jenkins] against the [d]efendants[] are hereby DISMISSED, with prejudice.’” Ms. *14. The Court “conclude(s) that the circuit court’s February 22, 2023, order sufficiently ascertained and declared the parties’ rights such that it adequately indicated the substance of the circuit court’s adjudication regarding all of Jenkins’s claims against all the defendants. Therefore, the February 22, 2023, order constituted a final judgment.” Ibid.
The Court notes that “Jenkins did not attempt to appeal from the February 22, 2023, judgment because, on June 21, 2023, the circuit court entered an order “purporting to reinstate Jenkins’s claims against [Birmingham Police Chief Scott] Thurmond and [Officer] Larry. However, the Court concludes the June 21, 2023 reinstatement order was a nullity because “Jenkins’s March 21, 2023, postjudgment motion filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) was denied by operation of law pursuant to Rule 59.1 on June 21, 2023 order, and the circuit court lost jurisdiction to rule on that motion. See Ex parte Hornsby, 663 So. 2d 966, 967 (Ala. 1995)(‘If a trial judge allows a post-trial motion to remain pending, and not ruled upon, for 90 days, … then the motion is denied by operation of law and the trial judge loses jurisdiction to rule on that motion.’)” Ms. *19.
Further, Jenkins’s April 28, 2023 “‘motion for clarification’ was substantively a Rule 59 motion and was filed more than thirty days after entry of the February 22, 2023 order; [consequently, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to grant that motion.” Ms. *22. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Jenkins’s appeal and “instruct(s) the circuit court to vacate its June 21, 2023, order and to vacate all subsequent orders entered in this action purporting to adjudicate the claims asserted in Jenkins’s complaint because those orders are nullities.” Ms. *26.