Rule v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections et al

Filing 18

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Frank H. Seay granting 6 Motion to Dismiss as to defendant Oklahoma Department of Corrections without prejudice (dma, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 9/23/2016 to edit text (dma, Deputy Clerk).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

GREGORY RULE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex. rel.,
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, and JOHN DOE,
an employee of Oklahoma Department of
Corrections,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-16-146-FHS

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Defendant State of Oklahoma ex. rel.
Oklahoma Department of Correction’s (“ODOC”) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 6). Plaintiff
filed his response on May 24, 2016 (Dkt. # 13) and Defendant filed a reply on June 6,
2016 (Dkt. # 15).
Plaintiff brings this action against ODOC under three different legal theories.
First, he claims violation of his substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment.

Second, he alleges claims under Bosh v. Cherokee County Building

Authority, 305 P.3d 994 (Okla. 2013). Plaintiff is requesting monetary relief exceeding
$75,000.00 as well as punitive damages. Finally, he alleges a claim for negligence under
the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act. The ODOC argues the action against
them should be dismissed for three reasons: 1) the applicable statute of limitations bars

Plaintiff’s claims; 2) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and 3)
the State can not be held liable for the bad faith actions of its employees. Additionally,
ODOC asserts plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is barred by The Governmental Tort
Claims Act (“GTCA”), Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 153.
In the Notice of Removal, however, ODOC stated: “Defendant does not waive,
and expressly reserves all defenses including, but not limited to, any applicable Eleventh
Amendment and/or sovereign immunity defenses.” The Eleventh Amendment bars suit
in federal court against a state. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662, 94 S.Ct. 1347,
1355, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). ODOC is an arm of the state and is entitled to absolute
immunity under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. Eastwood v.
Dep’t of Corr. of Okla., 846 F.2d 627, 631-632 (10th Cir. 1988). Absent a waiver by the
state, or a valid congressional override, the amendment bars a damages action against a
state in federal court. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985). As a result, this
Court dismisses this action against the ODOC without prejudice.
It is so ordered on this 23rd day of September, 2016.

2