Barrios v. Haskell Cnty. Pub. Facilities Auth., Case No. CIV-17-325-SPS

JERED BARRIOS, as the Personal Representativeof the Estate of RANDALL BARRIOS, deceased, Plaintiff, v. HASKELL COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES AUTHORITY;

BRIAN HALE, individually; KATRINA CHRISTY, individually and in her official capacity;

SHERIFF TIM TURNER, in his official capacity; and DOES I THROUGH V, Defendants.

Case No. CIV-17-325-SPS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

January 24, 2019

ORDER

Plaintiff Jered Barrios, as the personal representative for Randall Barrios, Deceased, filed this civil rights action against Defendants Haskell County Public Facilities Authority, Brian Hale (individually), Katrina Christy (individually and in her official capacity), and Sheriff Tim Turner (in his official capacity), in addition to Does I-V, alleging Randall Barrios was subject to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as alleging Oklahoma state law claims of negligence and wrongful death; negligent training, hiring, and supervision; and violations of the Oklahoma Constitution, Art. 2, §§ 7 & 9 (a Bosh¹ Claim). This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Facilities Authority, Christy, and Turner's Partial Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support [Docket No. 18] and Defendant Brian Hale's Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support [Docket No. 19]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Defendant's Hale's Motion to Dismiss should be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and that the partial Motion to Dismiss should be GRANTED.

As an initial matter, the Court finds that the Plaintiff's claim of a violation of the Oklahoma Constitution should be dismissed. On June 8, 2018, this Court certified questions of state law, including whether a county jail inmate may maintain a claim for denial of medical care under Article 2, §§ 7 & 9 of the Oklahoma Constitution notwithstanding any immunity for such a claim under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act ("OGTCA"). See Docket No. 54. On December 6, 2018, the Oklahoma Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, finding that "'constitutional' torts are now clearly 'torts' governed by the GTCA," and that "the GTCA's specific prohibition against tort suits arising out of the 'operation or maintenance of any prison, jail or correctional facility' bars the claims at issue here." 2018 OK 90, ¶ 12. In light of this ruling, the Plaintiff now concedes that this claim should be dismissed, and the Court doestherefore dismiss this claim. The Court addresses the remaining claims and arguments below.

Procedural History

The Plaintiff filed this case on August 30, 2017. The Plaintiff alleged five causes of action in his Complaint, but as discussed above, only four remain after the Oklahoma Supreme Court's ruling as to the Plaintiff's Oklahoma Constitution claim. The remaining claims are as follows: (I) § 1983, cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendments, as to all Defendants; (II) 12 Okla. Stat. § 1053, negligence and wrongful death, as to Defendants Hale, Turner, and Christy; (III) 12 Okla. Stat. § 1053, negligence and wrongful death as to Does I-V; and (IV) negligent training, hiring, and supervision, as to Defendants Haskell County Public Facilities Authority, Hale, and Christy. Defendants Haskell County Public Facilities Authority ("HCPFA"), Christy, and Turner together have filed a partial motion to dismiss, asserting they are immune from Count IV, Plaintiff's claim of negligent training, hiring, and supervision.² Additionally, Defendant Hale has moved to dismiss all claims against him.

Factual Background

Randall Barrios was in the custody of the Haskell County Public Facilities Authority when he committed suicide on November 12, 2016. Defendant Hale was the Sheriff ofHaskell County at the time of Mr. Barrios's death, and Defendant Christy was the Jail Administrator. Since that time, Defendant Turner has become the Sheriff Haskell County.

Analysis

A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but the statement of the claim under Rule 8(a)(2) must be "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). "A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 556, 557, 570 [internal quotation marks omitted]. "While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. And "[w]hile the 12(b)(6) standard does not require that Plaintiff establish a prima facie case in h[is] complaint, the elements of each alleged cause of action help to determine whether Plaintiff has set forth a plausible claim." Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188, 1192 (10th Cir. 2012). This requires a determination as to "whether the complaint sufficiently alleges facts supportingall the elements necessary to establish an entitlement to relief under the legal theory proposed." Lane v. Simon, 495 F.3d 1182, 1186 (10th Cir. 2007), quoting Forest Guardians v. Forsgren, 478 F.3d 1149, 1160 (10th Cir. 2007).

Negligent Training, Hiring, and Supervision. The Court first addresses Plaintiff's Fourth Claim for relief, as it is the subject of both Motions to Dismiss. The Tenth Circuit has stated that "the Twombly/Iqbal standard recognizes a plaintiff should have at least some relevant information to make the claims plausible on their face," but that "Rule 8(a)(2) ["A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.] still lives." Khalik, 671 F.3d at 1191, 1193. The Supreme Court recognized this in Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), finding that "[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement need only 'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). Here, the Plaintiff alleges an Oklahoma state law claim of negligent training, hiring, and supervision as to HCPFA, Hale, and Christy. As part of this claim, he alleges that the Doe Defendants I-V were "known [] to be inadequately capable of caring for the medical needs of inmates, specifically with concern for mental health dilemmas such as suicidal ideations, depression, and risk of suicide," and that the "Sheriff's Department, County, and Katrina Christy owed a duty of care [] to hire, train, and supervise its employees in a manner that would promote safety, ethical action, and responsibility of its employees." Docket No. 2, p. 14, ¶¶ 60-61. Furthermore, he alleges that "[t]hese defendants breached the duty of care[,]" and that these "actions, inactions, andomissions of the County and these defendants were the direct and proximate cause of injuries sustained by Barrios." Id., ¶¶ 62-63.

Defendant Hale asserts that this claim against him in his individual capacity is barred by the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act ("OGTCA") because he was necessarily acting within the scope of his employment with regard to any training, hiring, and supervision he undertook, and therefore he is immune from suit. Likewise, Defendants HCPFA and Christy assert their immunity from suit. The OGTCA states, "The state or a political subdivision shall not be liable if a loss or claim results from: []Provision, equipping, operation or maintenance of any prison, jail or correctional facility[.]" Okla. Stat. tit. 51 § 155(25). Moreover, discretionary actions are likewise shielded from liability. See Id. § 155(5) ("Performance of or the failure to exercise or perform any act or service which is in the discretion of the state or political subdivision or its employees[.]").

The Plaintiff asserts that he has alleged sufficient facts as to Defendant Hale and Defendant Christy in their individual capacities to establish that each was acting outside the scope of their employment or that a determination of whether they were acting inside or outside the scope of her employment is a question for the jury. Plaintiff asserts that this claim should not be litigated at this early stage because more discovery is necessary as to whether these Defendants were acting outside the scope of their employment. Alternatively, he contends that if sufficient facts have not been alleged, he should be allowed leave to amend the Complaint. The Plaintiff concedes, however, that Count IV as to Defendant Christy in her official capacity should be dismissed.

Here, the Plaintiff has simply alleged that "defendants" owed a duty of care that was breached when they "hired, failed to effectively train, failed to supervise, and failed to take any necessary steps to ensure that these employees were able to perform their duties in an ethical and safe manner." Docket No. 2, p. 14, ¶¶ 61-62. Plaintiff has alleged no facts that either Defendant Christy or Defendant Hale did anything specific, much less alleged facts sufficient to allege a theory of either of them acting outside the scope of their employment. In essence, the Complaint contains a bare recitation of elements...