Orange Beach resident C.C. Dixon-Moreno fired back last week against the City of Orange Beach’s motion to dismiss her lawsuit in federal court.
Dixon-Moreno, an attorney licensed to practice in Mississippi, filed a lawsuit pro se against the city in Baldwin County Circuit Court claiming that the city denied her public records request for body camera footage. The footage sought is related to an incident at the Coastal Resources building last year where a witness reported seeing Kennon in the buff on an office balcony and punching a woman repeatedly while holding her by the hair.
The city had the case removed to federal court, where it filed a motion to dismiss and characterized Dixon-Moreno’s complain as a “shotgun pleading” that does not adequately lay out what complaints are against which defendants. The motion also contends that Alabama law allows the custodians of public records to establish a process for the request of public records, a process that Dixon-Moreno ignored despite instruction from the city clerk to make a proper request through that channel.
In her response, Dixon-Moreno challenges that assertion claiming Alabama case law precludes technical requirements from preventing access to public records.
“Defendants’ central argument—that technical form compliance is mandatory—ignores established Alabama law,” Dixon-Moreno wrote. “The Alabama Supreme Court has long recognized that substantial compliance with public records procedures is sufficient when the requesting party provides clear notice of the records sought. Alabama’s public records law must be ‘liberally construed’ in favor of disclosure, and technical deficiencies should not defeat otherwise valid requests.”
While an Alabama law passed in 2024 specifically codifies the right of governments to establish a process for making public records requests, Dixon-Moreno argues that it cannot shield the city from responding to substantially sufficient requests made outside of that channel.
“Statutes must be interpreted to avoid constitutional violations,” Dixon-Moreno wrote. “Interpreting (Section) 36-12-45 (of the Code of Alabama) to allow arbitrary rejection of substantively complete requests would violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments by creating unreasonable barriers to access.”
If a judge were to agree with Dixon-Moreno’s reasoning, it could deal a blow to local barriers to accessing public records.
As to the claim that the initial complaint is a “shotgun pleading,” Dixon-Moreno argued that is incorrect and laid out exactly which charges are being made against who:
“1. Mayor Kennon: Personally blocked Plaintiff from official social media accounts (Count II) and is the subject of the domestic violence incident creating the public interest in disclosure
“2. City Clerk Eberly: As statutory custodian of public records, refused to process Plaintiff’s substantively complete written requests (Count I)
“3. Police Chief Brown: Has custody and control of the requested body camera footage and participates in withholding decisions (Count VI – Mandamus)
“4. City Attorney Logan: Provides legal justification for denial and participates in coordinated response (conspiracy claims)
“5. City Administrator Handley: Participates in policy decisions regarding records access”
If the judge is inclined to agree that the original complaint is a shotgun pleading, Dixon-Moreno argued that the correct course is to provide the opportunity for the complaint be amended or re-pleaded, not to dismiss the case.
The city will have another opportunity to respond and a hearing is set on the matter for Sept. 3.
