JLC v. McKinney et al

Filing 22

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 12 Defendants Wayne McKinney, Lawson Guthrie, and Brandon Balthrop, in his Official Capacity's, Partial Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 1/19/12. (lg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
J.L.C.,*

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WAYNE McKINNEY, in his individual
)
capacity and his official capacity as
)
Sheriff of Stephens County, Oklahoma;
)
BRANDON WILEY BALTHROP, in his )
individual capacity and in his official
)
capacity as a Stephens County Deputy
)
Sheriff; and LAWSON GUTHRIE, in his )
individual capacity and in his official
)
capacity as a supervisor (lieutenant)
)
with the Stephens County Sheriff’s Office, )
)
Defendants.
)

No. CIV-11-683-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff filed the present action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Oklahoma
Governmental Tort Claims Act, 51 Okla. Stat. §§ 151 et seq. (“OGTCA”), seeking damages
for alleged wrongdoing by Defendants. Accepting the facts alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint,
on July 7, 2010, Plaintiff was driving in Stephens County en route to her mother’s home.
She was being followed by a friend who did not know the way. Defendant Balthrop initiated
a traffic stop of Plaintiff’s friend. Plaintiff then pulled over to await the completion of the
traffic stop. After noting that her friend was having a difficult time finding her driver’s

*

At the Status Conference, counsel for Plaintiff was directed to provide authority
which permits Plaintiff to proceed identified only by her initials. The Court’s use of initials
here does not reflect tacit approval.

license, Plaintiff went back to the area of the traffic stop to offer assistance. According to
Plaintiff, Defendant Balthrop subjected Plaintiff to a field sobriety test and then instructed
her to pull her bra away from her body and shake it, turned her away from him, and ran his
fingers around her waistline inside her pants, forced his hands down her pants groping her
vaginal area, shined his flashlight into her pants, and viewed her vaginal area. Following this
intrusive search, Plaintiff asserts that Balthrop returned to his vehicle. Plaintiff, along with
the other individuals present at the traffic stop, located her friend’s driver’s license. After
verifying the validity of the license, Defendant Balthrop allowed Plaintiff and her friends to
leave.
The next morning Plaintiff reported Balthrop’s conduct to the Stephens County
Sheriff’s Department. According to Plaintiff, her complaints about Defendant Balthrop’s
conduct were met with disdain and insinuations that she had fabricated the event. Ultimately,
an Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation occurred. That investigation found: that
Plaintiff’s claim had merit; that Balthrop had engaged in prior instances of misconduct; that
certain of those incidents of misconduct had occurred prior to his hire by the Stephens
County Sheriff’s Department; and that that information was available to the Stephens County
Sheriff’s Department at the time it elected to hire Defendant Balthrop. Plaintiff alleges that
in spite of this knowledge, Defendant McKinney hired Defendant Balthrop. Seeking to
recover for the alleged constitutional and tort actions perpetrated against her, Plaintiff filed
the present action.

2

Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),
asserting that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim for relief. According to Defendants,
Plaintiff’s first, second, and third causes of action should be dismissed as to Defendant
McKinney in his individual capacity because Plaintiff failed to alleged any personal
participation by Defendant McKinney. Defendants next seek dismissal of the first, second,
and third causes of action as to Defendant Balthrop in his official capacity, asserting that an
official capacity suit against a non-final decision or policymaker is improper under the law;
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action should be dismissed as to Defendant
Guthrie in his official capacity, as Defendant Guthrie has no official capacity; Defendants
argue that Plaintiff’s fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action should be dismissed as
Defendant McKinney is not a proper party under the terms of the OGTCA and is immune
from suit under that Act; and finally Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claim for punitive
damages against Defendants McKinney, Guthrie, and Balthrop in their official capacities
should be dismissed as neither § 1983 nor the OGTCA permits an award of punitive damages
against a state entity. In response, Plaintiff argues that her claims are properly pled and well
supported both factually and legally and requests the Court to deny Defendants’ motion in
its entirety.
Defendants’ request for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure12(b)(6)
requires the Court to examine the well-pled allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint and
determine if they state a plausible claim for relief. The Court must examine the “specific
allegations in the complaint to determine whether they plausibly support a legal claim for
3

relief.” Alvarado v. KOB-TV, L.L.C., 493 F.3d 1210, 1215 (10th Cir. 2007) (citing Bell
Atl.Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007), and Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
93-94 (2007)). “[T]he mere metaphysical possibility that some plaintiff could prove some
set of facts in support of the pleaded claims is insufficient; the complaint must give the court
reason to believe that this plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support
for these claims.” Ridge at Red Hawk, L.L.C. v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1247 (10th Cir.
2007).
In their challenge to Counts One, Two, and Three of Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against
Defendant McKinney, Defendants argue that because Plaintiff has failed to allege personal
participation by Defendant McKinney in these counts, the claims must be dismissed.
Defendants recognize that Plaintiff alleged a claim for failure to supervise in Count Four, but
assert that the failure to include any allegations of personal participation in Counts One, Two,
and Three, warrant dismissal of the claims.
Defendants’ arguments do not warrant dismissal. Although Count Four raises a
specific allegation for failure to supervise, that fact does not preclude other allegations of
wrongdoing by Defendant McKinney. To establish liability against McKinney for Balthrop’s
actions, Plaintiff must show: “(1) the defendant promulgated, created, implemented or
possessed responsibility for the continued operation of a policy that (2) caused the
complained of constitutional harm, and (3) acted with the state of mind required to establish
the alleged constitutional deprivation.” Dodds v. Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185, 1199 (10th Cir.
2010), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2150 (2011). While Plaintiff’s Complaint may
4

be inartfully drafted, the allegations in Counts One, Two, and Three, allege facts which if
proven would demonstrate a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and that give rise to
liability by Defendant McKinney under the above quoted authority.

Accordingly,

Defendants’ motion will be denied on this proposition.
Defendants’ second argument for dismissal is that Plaintiff’s first, second, and third
causes of action should be dismissed as to Defendant Balthrop in his official capacity.
According to Defendants, because Defendant Balthrop has no official capacity, and he has
no final policymaking authority with regard to the Stephens County Sheriff’s Office, naming
him as a defendant in his official capacity is improper and dismissal is the appropriate
remedy. In response, Plaintiff argues that Defendants confuse the concept of who must be
the source of a policy, practice, or custom which would give rise to § 1983 liability versus
who may be held liable or who may be named as a defendant in such a case. According to
Plaintiff, because she has raised sufficient allegations that Defendant Balthrop violated her
constitutional rights, she may sue him in his individual and official capacities.
The Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments well founded. Defendants, in arguing that
Defendant Balthrop is an improper defendant, improperly conflate the concepts of who may
be sued and the legal theories giving rise to a claim. A claim against defendant in his official
capacity is nothing more than a suit against the entity. While the official capacity claims
against Balthrop may be superfluous, the arguments raised by Defendants’ motion do not
warrant dismissal.

5

Defendants’ third proposition seeks dismissal as to Defendant Guthrie in his official
capacity, arguing that Defendant Guthrie has no official capacity as he does not have final
policymaking authority with regard to the operation of the Stephens County Sheriff’s Office
and therefore he cannot be sued in his official capacity. This argument fails for the reasons
noted above.
In their fourth proposition for dismissal, Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff’s fifth,
sixth, and seventh causes of action against Defendant McKinney in his official capacity.
Defendants rely upon § 163 of the OGTCA which states in pertinent part:
Suits instituted pursuant to the provisions of this act shall name as
defendant the state or the political subdivision against which liability is sought
to be established. In no instance shall an employee of the state or political
subdivision acting within the scope of his employment be named as
defendant . . . .
51 Okla. Stat. § 163(C).
Plaintiff’s arguments in support of her OGTCA claim against Defendant McKinney
are without merit. The cases cited by Plaintiff fail to address the specific point raised by
Defendants and are not helpful. Rather, as Defendants argue, the statute clearly provides that
liability for any tortious acts undertaken within the scope of any of the named Defendants’
employment can only be brought against the governmental entity, which Defendants assert
is the Board of County Commissioners of Stephens County. Accordingly, Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss will be granted without prejudice on this point. Plaintiff will be allowed
to amend her Complaint to add the Board of County Commissioners of Stephens County as
a Defendant.
6

Finally, Defendants challenge Plaintiff’s assertion of punitive damages claims,
asserting that no punitive damages may be awarded against the municipal entity under § 1983
or the OGTCA. Plaintiff notes her agreement with this assertion of law, but asserts that she
may well have other valid punitive damages claims against the Defendants in their individual
capacities. Because Plaintiff has stated a claim for relief which may be valid under the law,
and the parties are in agreement as to the reach of that claim, the Court finds it unnecessary
to dismiss the claim as requested by Defendants.
For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants Wayne McKinney, Lawson Guthrie, and
Brandon Balthrop, in His Official Capacity’s [sic], Partial Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 12)
is granted in part and denied in part.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of January, 2012.

7