is also due to be DENIED. 2. Alabama State Law — Assault and Battery Plaintiff alleges state law assault and battery claims against Defendants Seale and Smith .arising out of the April 27, 2009 incident. Generally, sheriffs enjoy sovereign immunity from suits for damages in their individual capacities for acts they performed in the course and scope of their employment. See Ex parte Davis, 930 So.2d 497, 500-01 (Ala.2005) (“[T]his Court has consistently held that a claim for monetary damages made against a constitutional officer.in the officer’s individual capacity is barred by State immunity whenever the acts that are the basis of the alleged liability were performed within the course and scope of the officer’s employment.”); Boshell v. Walker Cnty., 598 So.2d 843, 844 (Ala.1992) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, the Alabama Supreme Court has
recognizing that a sheriff as an executive officer of the state of alabama is immune under article i  14 of the alabama constitution from suit based on state law claims arising out of the execution of the duties of his office holding that a  1983 action against a sheriff made the state of alabama a real party in interest holding that alabama law per mits foreign corporations to lend money to residents of alabama and to take security for such loans in the form of mortgages on real property located within the state and to enforce such obligations in the courts of alabama holding that a release of such claims or other matters arising from the beginning of time to the date of execution of this agreement did not protect the defendant from liability arising from unconstitutional conduct that occurred after the agreements execution holding state immune from suit brought in state court