DOCUMENT 76

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
1/29/2019 11:28 AM
55-CV-2019-000002.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
PIKE COUNTY, ALABAMA
JAMIE NEELEY SCARBROUGH, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PIKE COUNTY ALABMA

DAVENPORT, TARA, as Mother and next friend,

on behalf of her minor daughter, MAORI DAVENPORT;

PLAINTIFF,
CV: 2019-000002
vs.

SAVARESE, STEVE, individually and as Director of the

Alabama High School Athletic Association; and
ALABAMA HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION;
CHARLES HENDERSON HIGH SCHOOL;

DEFENDANTS.

______________________________________________________________________________

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND EMERGENCY MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

COMES NOW the above referenced Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, and
in seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief do amend the original Complaint to include the
following additional paragraphs, in addition to paragraphs 1 – 41 of the original Complaint
which the Plaintiff adopts in whole as if set forth completely herein, to: (1) add Charles
Henderson High School as a party defendant, (2) affirmatively give notice of the challenge to the
precedent providing the AHSAA a heightened degree of judicial deference and standard of
review of AHSAA decisions and, (3) include Alabama State Constitution claims:

1-41. Paragraphs 1-41 of the original complaint are adopted as if fully set forth herein.
42. Charles Henderson High School (CHHS) is a public high school located in Troy,
Alabama. CHHS is a member of the AHSAA. Maori Davenport is a student-athlete at CHHS.
The AHSAA uses CHHS and other state entities as a proxy to enforce its rules.
STATE ACTOR ALLEGATION
43. The AHSAA is a state actor for purposes of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses
of the Alabama Constitution. The plaintiff is affirmatively challenging any precedent that the
defendants are entitled to heightened judicial deference or judicial restraint.
 DOCUMENT 76

44. Such precedent is based on a misapprehension that the AHSAA is a voluntary

organization. In truth, the AHSAAA in its current embodiment and through its current conduct
is not a voluntary organization.
45. Even though the AHSAA was founded in 1921 as a private association, it has evolved
into a state actor.
46. The AHSAA regulates athletics for 780 high schools, middle schools and over 150,000
student-athletes, all the while using state dollars and state facilities. Schools effectively have no
choice but to join the AHSAA to be allowed to take part in athletics.
47. The AHSAA engages in state action when it enforces its rules against member schools
and student-athletes. The association’s regulatory activity should be treated as state action owing
to the pervasive entwinement of state school officials in the structure of the association.
48. Multiple courts have found the AHSAA to be a state actor. AHSAA was held to be a
state agent in Lee v. Macon County Board of Education., 283 F. Supp. 194, 196 (M.D. Ala.
1968). See also Stuart v. AHSAA, 02-cv-00308 (S.D. Ala.) The United States Supreme Court
held that a similar state athletic association was a state actor. Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee
Secondary School Athletic Association, 531 U.S. 288 (2001).
49. Alabama Supreme Court Justices have stated that greater scrutiny of AHSAA decisions is
required because the AHSAA plays a role that goes above and beyond a traditional voluntary
association. Ex Parte AHSAA, 229 So. 3d at 1104, 1106.
50. The AHSAA, though clearly not a voluntary association, and exhibiting characteristics of
a state agency, does not resemble the typical “state actor.” State agencies are normally subject to
levels of democratic oversight and accountability. The AHSAA is not.
51. Further, the AHSAA vests its primary rulemaking authority in a Central Board of
Control. This Board of Control that writes its own rules, selects its own membership, imposes
no term limits, and no rule it adopts, no matter how punitive, arbitrary, unsafe, or discriminatory
is subject to any procedure of appeal or review.
52. Plaintiff contends that that the AHSAA, based on the facts surrounding its existence
today, should not be afforded any judicial deference at all.
53. The AHSAA more closely resembles an administrative agency than it does anything else.
Because the AHSAA plays a role that goes far beyond that of a traditional voluntary association,
closer scrutiny of its actions is necessary and the Court should review this case with heightened
scrutiny.
VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION PROVISIONS OF THE ALABAMA
CONSTITUTION

54. The Alabama Constitution guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws.
 DOCUMENT 76

55. Defendants have failed to treat the Plaintiff in a manner similar to other students. In fact
the AHSAA treats student-athletes different than any other student involved in any other high
school activity. Only student athletes are prevented from receiving money related to their
student involvement or extra curricular activity.
56. A high school band member can profit from paid musical performances or by giving
lessons. A student can be a paid tutor. A high school drama club member can be a paid actor.
All students would be allowed to receive a lost wage payment. The distinctions are arbitrary and
capricious and were not the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling governmental
interest. Instead, the Defendants have created two classes of persons without a compelling basis
for distinction. Accordingly, Defendants have denied the Plaintiff equal protection in violation of
the Alabama Constitution.
57. Alternatively, the distinctions created by the Defendants are arbitrary and capricious and
have no rational relationship to any legitimate governmental purpose. Instead, the Defendants
have created two classes of persons without a rational basis for distinction.
58. In their actions toward the Plaintiff, the Defendants have acted willfully, intentionally,
and with callous and reckless indifference to plaintiffs’ rights under the Alabama Constitution.

VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS PROVISIONS OF THE ALABAMA

CONSTITUTION

59. The Alabama Constitution guarantees all citizens due process.

60. By arbitrarily and capriciously denying the Plaintiff her fundamental rights the
Defendants have violated the due process rights accorded the Plaintiff by the Alabama
Constitution.
61. In their actions toward the Plaintiff, the Defendants have acted willfully, intentionally and
with callous and reckless indifference to the Plaintiff’s rights under the Alabama Constitution.
62. The process of appeals deprived Maori Davenport of both her procedural and substantive
due process rights.
63. She was unilaterally disqualified from play without a hearing and the appeals hearings
were fraudulent shams devoid of any real opportunity for Davenport to be heard.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays this Court will grant the following relief:

A. A declaratory judgment that Saverese and/or the AHSAA’s ruling against Maori
Davenport is invalid; that any ruling by Savarese and/or the AHSAA is or may be
ineligible to participate in the sport of basketball for the 2018-19 season is
 DOCUMENT 76

invalid; that any ruling by Savarese and/or the AHSAA against Maori Davenport
is or will be contrary to the AHSAA’s rules and regular practices; and that any
ruling by Saverese and/or the AHSAA against Maori Davenport is or will be
arbitrary, based on collusion, and/or the product of fraud;

B. An order declaring Maori Davenport eligible;

C. An injunction prohibiting Saverese and/or the AHSAA from disqualifying Maori

Davenport from participation in the sport of basketball for the 2018-19 season;

D. An expedited hearing due to the fact that the regular season is finite, and that post-
season play in the sport of basketball begins in February of this year;

E. A temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and/or other equitable

relief staying any ruling by Saverese and/or the AHSAA against Maori Davenport
pending final judgment.

F. An order preventing the AHSAA from treating student-athletes disparately from

other students.

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of January, 2019.

/s/CARL A. COLE, III (COL 118)

Carl A. Cole, III

/s/GRADY A. REEVES
Grady A. Reeves (REE 042)

OF COUNSEL:

THE COLE LAW FIRM

PO BOX 2064
DECATUR, AL 35602
256-353-0550
CARL@CARLCOLELAW.COM
 DOCUMENT 76

CERVERA, RALPH, REEVES, BAKER & HASTINGS, LLC

914 S. BRUNDIDGE STREET
PO BOX 325
TROY, AL 36801
334-566-0116

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify the foregoing was filed with the Pike County Circuit Court on January
29th and that the filing will be served on the defendants at 7325 Halcyon Summit Dr.,
Montgomery, AL 36124 or by AlaCourt electronic filing.