Roberts v. Southwest Youth and Family Services Inc et al

Filing 36

ORDER granting 32 Defendant Southwest Youth and Family Services, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Brief in Support and dismissing plaintiff's claims against Southwest and Wilson in his official capacity as the drug court coordinator (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 12/5/2014. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BRANDY ROBERTS, formerly Ingram,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTHWEST YOUTH AND FAMILY
SERVICES, INC. and
STANLEY EUGENE WILSON, JR.
Individually and in his official capacity,
Defendants.

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

Case No. CIV-13-307-M

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Southwest Youth and Family Services, Inc.’s
(“Southwest”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and Brief in Support, filed
April 14, 2014. On May 5, 2014, plaintiff responded, and on May 12, 2014, Southwest replied.
Based on the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its determination.
I.

Introduction
In April 2011, plaintiff was a participant and under the jurisdiction of the Caddo County,

Oklahoma Drug Court. Plaintiff alleges that while under the jurisdiction of the Drug Court in
March through July, 2011, she was subjected to improper sexual conduct by defendant Stanley
Eugene Wilson, Jr. (“Wilson”), her drug court coordinator. Plaintiff further alleges that
Southwest was, at all times, operating under contract with the Oklahoma State Department of
Mental Health and the Caddo County District Attorney’s office pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 22,
§§471.1 et seq., and was “delegated the authority to supervise the Drug Court participants and
report the participant’s activities and violations to the Drug Court Team, District Attorney and to
the Court.” Am. Compl. ¶ 6. Plaintiff alleges that Wilson, while exercising the powers delegated

to him by the State, beginning around the end of March or the first of April, 2011, coerced,
extorted, and compelled sexual conduct with her. Further, plaintiff alleges that Wilson’s conduct
continued through approximately the beginning of July 2011.
Plaintiff alleges that as a result of Wilson’s alleged conduct her Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights of bodily integrity and equal protection of the law have been violated and,
therefore, she has an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff also alleges that such actions are a
violation of the Oklahoma Constitution Article 2, §§ 6, 7, 9, and 30 and that:
11.

Southwest is liable for Wilson’s actions because it had
prior notice of inappropriate behavior by Wilson towards
females under his charge and was warned about the risk
and impropriety of Wilson conducting unsupervised home
visits and contact with such females. Southwest ignored
such risks and warnings and thereby in violation of its duty
to hire competent employees and to engage in the care of
the supervision of such employees to avoid and prevent the
misuse of delegated power. The basis for such liability is
A.
Southwest’s negligent supervision and retention of
Mr. Wilson;
B.
Failure to exercise reasonable care in allowing
supervisory males to engage in unsupervised visits
or home contacts in [sic] that the misuse of
authority of such persons is reasonably foreseeable;
and
C.
Because Mr. Wilson was aided in the
accomplishment of the torts by the authority
invested in Mr. Wilson by the Defendant.

12.

In failing to engage in the careful hiring, supervision and
retention of its employees, Southwest was directly guilty
of:
A.
A malicious wrong,
B.
Either reckless, intentional or negligent infliction of
emotional distress.

Id. ¶¶ 11 & 12. Further, plaintiff alleges that the Governmental Torts Claims Act (“GTCA”)
does not shield Southwest from liability since the alleged actions of Southwest, as they pertain to
plaintiff, did not constitute the acts of any political subdivision identified by the GTCA.
2

Southwest now moves this Court, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
and (6), to dismiss plaintiff’s alleged claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, Southwest asserts that: (1) it is
entitled to absolute judicial immunity; (2) to the extent plaintiff brings this suit against Southwest
in its official capacity as a state entity, it is entitled to sovereign immunity; (3) it cannot be held
liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the alleged tortious conduct and
constitutional violations of its employee, Wilson; and (4) plaintiff’s direct tort claims against
Southwest are barred by the GTCA.
II.

Standard for Dismissal
Regarding the standard for determining whether to dismiss a claim pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the United States Supreme Court has held:
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. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability
requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts
that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short
of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to
relief.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Further,
“where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of
misconduct, the complaint has alleged – but it has not shown – that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Id. at 679 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Additionally, “[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
3

enhancement.” Id. at 678 (internal quotations and citations omitted). “While the 12(b)(6)
standard does not require that Plaintiff establish a prima facie case in her 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). Finally, “[a] court
reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint presumes all of plaintiff’s factual allegations are true
and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106,
1109 (10th Cir. 1991).
III.

Discussion
Southwest asserts that it is entitled to absolute judicial immunity because it was acting as

the administrator and supervisor of the Cado County Drug Court during the time plaintiff alleges
Southwest committed the alleged tortious and unconstitutional acts. The Oklahoma Drug Court
Act authorizes district courts in Oklahoma to establish a drug court program. See Okla. Stat. tit.
22, § 471.1(B). A drug court is “an immediate and highly structured judicial intervention process
for substance abuse treatment of eligible offenders which expedites the criminal case, and
requires successful completion of the plea agreement in lieu of incarceration.” Okla. Stat. tit. 22,
§ 471.1(A). Further,
[d]rug court programs shall require a separate judicial processing
system differing in practice and design from the traditional
adversarial criminal prosecution and trial systems. Whenever
possible, a drug court team shall be designated consisting of a
judge to administer the program, a district attorney, a defense
attorney, and other persons designated by the drug court team who
shall have appropriate understanding of the goals of the program
and of the appropriate treatment methods for the various
conditions. The assignment of any person to the drug court team
shall not preclude the assigned person from performing other
duties required in the course of their office or employment.
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 471.1(D).
4

“[I]mmunity which derives from judicial immunity may extend to persons other than a
judge where performance of judicial acts . . . is involved. . . . [A]bsolute judicial immunity has
been extended to non-judicial officers where their duties had an integral relationship with the
judicial process.” Lundahl v. Zimmer, 296 F.3d 936, 939 (10th Cir. 2002) (quoting Whitesel v.
Sengenberger, 222 F.3d 861, 867 (10th Cir. 2000)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Southwest contends that “[p]laintiff’s claims against Southwest stem solely from its official
duties for the court and for the Drug Court Program” and that “[t]hese actions are integrally
connected with the judicial process pursuant to Oklahoma’s Drug Court Act.” Mot. to Dis. at 8 –
9.
Having carefully reviewed plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and presuming all of
plaintiff’s factual allegations are true and construing them in the light most favorable to plaintiff,
the Court finds that Southwest is entitled to absolute judicial immunity and plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 claim, Oklahoma Constitution claims, and tort claims should be dismissed against
Southwest and against Wilson in his official capacity as drug court coordinator. Plaintiff, in her
response, failed to respond to Southwest’s contention that it is entitled to absolute judicial
immunity other than to assert that Southwest “is arguing immunity based on a designation
unrelated to the claims, functions and events at issue in this case.” Plf.’s Resp. at 2. In her
Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges the following:
5.

In April 2011, the Plaintiff was a person within the
jurisdiction of Caddo county drug court, which in all
pertinent regards was administered by the Defendant
Southwest Youth and Family Services Inc.

6.

Southwest was, at all times, operating under contracts with
the Oklahoma State Department of Mental Health and the
District Attorney’s office. Under this contracts, [sic]
Southwest was delegated the authority to supervise the
5

Drug Court participants and report the participant’s
activities and violations to the Drug Court Team, District
Attorney and the Court.
Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5 & 6. The Court finds that plaintiff alleges that Southwest was operating as a
drug court at all times while the alleged events occurred in this case and, therefore, plaintiff’s
claims against Southwest and against Wilson in his official capacity as the drug court coordinator
should be dismissed.
IV.

Conclusion
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendant Southwest

Youth and Family Services, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and Brief
in Support [docket no. 32] and DISMISSES plaintiff’s claims against Southwest and Wilson in
his official capacity as the drug court coordinator.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of December, 2014.

6