Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Seminole v. State ex rel. Okla. Dep't of Corr.

499 P.3d 33

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF the COUNTY OF SEMINOLE, Oklahoma, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Atoka, Oklahoma, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Lincoln, Oklahoma, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Delaware, Oklahoma, Plaintiffs/Appellants,

v.The STATE of Oklahoma, EX REL. OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Scott Crow, In his official capacity as Interim Director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, and State Board of Corrections, Defendants/Appellees.

Case No. 118,902

Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1.

FILED JULY 30, 2021

Mandate Issued: August 25, 2021

Terry M. McKeever, FOSHEE & YAFFE LAW FIRM, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiffs/Appellants,

Craig A. Fitzgerald, Timothy J. Sullivan, Justin A. Lollman, GABLEGOTWALS, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees.

Opinion by B.J. Goree, Presiding Judge:

¶1 The Board of County Commissioners of Seminole, Oklahoma, Atoka, Lincoln, and Delaware Counties (collectively, "Counties") filed suit against the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, the State Board of Corrections, and Scott Crow in his official capacity as interim director (collectively, "DOC"). Counties seek declaratory judgment and damages for amounts expended on prisoners and not reimbursed by DOC. A statute sets a daily rate of reimbursement and describes the procedure a county must follow if its actual costs are greater than the statutory rate. In the event DOC and the county cannot agree on a rate, the statute directs the State Auditor to decide. The trial court dismissed all of Counties' claims stating it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We hold the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate any claim that would require it to decide the "actual daily cost reimbursement" referenced in Title 57 O.S. Supp. 2018 § 38, because that determination rests in the executive branch of government through the power of the State Auditor. However, the court has subject matter jurisdiction to determine Counties' reimbursement claim for transporting inmates to DOC facilities because that claim is outside the scope of § 38. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

¶2 The Oklahoma Constitution requires the state to support its institutions, including the State's penal institutions, and precludes the use of Counties' ad valorem tax proceeds to support anything deemed a "state purpose." Okla. Const. Art. 21, § 1¹ and Okla. Const. Art. 10, § 9(a).² See also Board of County Commissioners of the County of Bryan v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections , 2015 OK CIV APP 86, 362 P.3d 241. In certain instances, Oklahoma law requires a county to house inmates in its jails, and for DOC to reimburse the cost. 57 O.S. Supp. 2018 §§ 37 - 38. Housing inmates in county jails on behalf of the state after the date of judgment and sentence is a state purpose. Bryan County , ¶35. The Counties seek reimbursement for the cost of caring for inmates in their respective jails, and for the costs of transporting inmates.

¶3 Citing 57 O.S. Supp. 2018 § 38, DOC filed a motion to dismiss. It argued the State Auditor has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between Counties and DOC for reimbursement claims. Counties argue the district courts possess general jurisdiction to make determinations under § 38, and even if the State Auditor has some authority under that statute, the court could exercise power over claims unrelated to the reimbursement rate. The trial court dismissed all claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied Counties' motion for new trial.³

¶4 The standard of review for denial of a motion for new trial is abuse of discretion. Smith v. City of Stillwater , 2014 OK 42, ¶11, 328 P.3d 1192. An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is based on an erroneous conclusion of law or where there is no rational basis in the evidence for the ruling. Id . The propriety of the trial court's denial of Counties' post-judgment motion rests on the underlying correctness of its decision to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See id . The abuse of discretion question is therefore settled by de novo review of the dismissal's correctness. Id. See also Young v. Station 27, Inc. , 2017 OK 68, ¶8, 404 P.3d 829.

¶5 The narrow issue on appeal is the district court's subject matter jurisdiction.⁴ The dominant question is the effect of § 38, which empowers the State Auditor to determine the jail reimbursement rate, on the district court's "unlimited original jurisdiction of all justiciable matters." Okla. Const. Art. 7, § 7(a). The reimbursement procedure of § 38 involves the interplay of several governmental entities. Sheriffs, or others properly designated, are in charge of jails in Oklahoma.⁵ County Sheriffs are required to provide board and necessities to inmates,⁶ and are entitled to compensation for these items from the County Board.⁷ County jails are sometimes used as prisons for persons who have been sentenced but have not yet been transported to state prison.⁸ DOC incurs the cost of housing those persons in county jails from the time the Judgment and Sentence is ordered until the time the inmate is transferred. Title 57 O.S. Supp. 2018 § 37(E) provides:

E. The Department will be responsible for the cost of housing the inmate in the county jail including costs of medical care provided from the date the judgment and sentence was ordered by the court until the date the inmate is scheduled to be transferred to the Department from the county jail....

Title 57 O.S. Supp. 2018 § 38 sets the DOC daily rate of reimbursement at $27 per day and governs the procedure when the actual cost exceeds $27 per day:

The Department of Corrections shall reimburse any county which is required to retain an inmate pursuant to subsection E of Section 37 of this title in an amount not to exceed Twenty-seven Dollars ($27.00) per day for each inmate during such period of retention, unless the actual daily cost as determined by the Department of Corrections Daily Rate as defined in this section, exceeds Twenty-seven Dollars ($27.00). If the actual daily cost as determined by the Department of Corrections Daily Rate exceeds Twenty-seven Dollars ($27.00), the county shall notify the Department of Corrections of the actual daily cost no later than September 30. If the county's actual daily cost is accepted by the Department that shall be the reimbursement rate for the county beginning the next fiscal year. If the Department rejects the county's actual daily cost application, then the actual daily cost reimbursement shall be determined by the State Auditor and shall be imposed beginning the next fiscal year. The Department shall distribute the reimbursement on a monthly basis upon receipt and approval of a billing statement from the county. The county shall use the reimbursement to defray expenses of equipping and maintaining the jail and payment of personnel.

(emphasis added). Section 38's requirements that the county notify DOC, that DOC make the decision to approve or deny the rate, and that the State Auditor decide the rate in the event of a dispute between the county and DOC contemplates an executive or administrative scheme.⁹

¶6 Subject matter jurisdiction is the court's power to proceed in a case of the character presented, or power to grant the relief sought. Dutton v. City of Midwest City , 2015 OK 51, ¶16, 353 P.3d 532. It concerns the ability of the court to determine the particular matter; it cannot be waived by the parties and it may be challenged at any time. In re A.N.O. , 2004 OK 33, ¶9, 91 P.3d 646. The Constitution specifically lists those entities in which judicial power is vested and it creates the subject matter jurisdiction of the district courts of the State. Okla. Const. Art. 7, § 1. Judicial power is vested in the state courts, including the district courts, and "such Boards, Agencies and Commissions created by the Constitution or established by statute as exercise adjudicative authority or render decisions in individual proceedings."¹⁰ Okla. Const. Art. 7, § 1. Additionally, the district court's jurisdiction is limited by the Oklahoma Constitution's article providing for the separation of powers. Art. 4, § 1.¹¹

¶7 The Constitution vests powers in three separate branches—the legislative, executive and judicial. Except as provided in the Constitution, the three are separate and distinct and shall not exercise the power properly belonging to another. Okla. Const. Art. 4, § 1. The doctrine of separation of powers requires that the judiciary not interfere with the exercise of executive or legislative powers unless express authority to do so is provided for in the Constitution. See Independent School District No. 1 of Oklahoma County v. Scott , 2000 OK CIV APP 121, ¶22, 15 P.3d 1244.¹² ¶8 Okla. Const. Art. 6, § 1 names the Auditor as a member of the executive branch.¹³ The Constitution provides the duties and powers of the Auditor;¹⁴ it requires that they have experience as an expert accountant and that they "perform such other duties and have such other powers as may be prescribed by law." Okla. Const. Art. 6, § 19.¹⁵ Importantly, Article 6, § 1 specifically authorizes the Legislature to prescribe additional executive duties.

¶9 Title 57 O.S. § 38 directs the Auditor to determine the actual daily reimbursement cost in certain situations. The Auditor as a member of the Executive Branch exercises discretion in the performance of his duties and courts may only interfere with that power in extreme situations. Scott , ¶23. The Legislature has "impose[d] certain positive duties" on the Auditor, and "by failing to define the limits of his duties and to prescribe the manner of their performance[,] he is left to his own judgment in the discharge of his duties thus imposed, and the courts will not interfere with his discretion unless it be made to appear that he has abused his...