Ex parte Danny Rogers, [Ms. CL-2025-0133, Apr. 11, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. Civ. App. 2025). The court (Moore, P.J.; Edwards, Hanson, Fridy, and Lewis, JJ., concur) grants Deputy Danny Rogers’s mandamus petition directing the Jefferson Circuit Court to dismiss an action filed by United Services Insurance Company (“USAA”) on its subrogation claim.
The complaint named only the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office but was purportedly amended to add Deputy Rogers as a defendant. The court first explains, “[u]nder Alabama law, a sheriff’s department or sheriff’s office is not a legal entity subject to suit. See Ex parte Haralson, 853 So. 2d 928, 931 (Ala. 2003) (‘It is clear under Alabama law that the sheriff’s department is not a legal entity subject to suit.’).” Ms. *5. The amendment adding Rogers was not effective because “[a] complaint against a nonentity is a nullity that does not invoke the subject-matter jurisdiction of the circuit court. See Maclin v. Congo, 106 So. 3d 405, 408 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (holding that complaint that was filed against deceased person did not invoke jurisdiction of court).” Ibid.
Finally, mandamus was appropriate “[b]ecause the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, Rogers had a clear legal right to a dismissal of the action. The circuit court refused to perform its mandatory duty to dismiss the action when it denied Rogers’s second motion to dismiss. Rogers has no other adequate remedy to redress that error, and he has properly invoked the jurisdiction of this court.” Ms. *6.