Bradford v. Currid et al
Filing
13
ORDER denying 10 Motion for Order; adopting Report and Recommendations re 11 Report and Recommendation. This matter is re-referred to Judge Erwin for additional proceedings. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint no later than November 18, 2015.. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 10/28/2015. (md)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
KEVIN BRADFORD,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN CURRID, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIV-15-606-R
ORDER
Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of his
constitutional rights. The Court referred to the matter to United States Magistrate Judge Shon
T. Erwin for preliminary review. On September 29, 2015, Judge Erwin issued a Report and
Recommendation wherein he recommended that the Plaintiff's claims against Defendants
Currid, Medrano and the Greer County Jail be dismissed upon filing pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1997e(c)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B). He concluded that Plaintiff's allegations of excessive force
against Defendant Hopingardmer survive sua sponte screening. The matter is currently
before the Court on Plaintiff's timely objection to the Report and Recommendation, which
gives rise to the Court's obligation to conduct a de novo review of those portions of the
Report and Recommendation to which Plaintiff makes specific objection.
Plaintiff filed suit against John Currid and Chris Hopingardmer, police officers for the
City of Mangum, David Medrano, who he identifies as a Greer County EMT/Jailer, and the
"Mangum Greer County Jail." Complaint, p. 4.1 Judge Erwin recommended dismissal of the
Greer County Jail because it is not subject to suit. The capacity of an entity to be sued is
determined by the law of the state in which the federal district court is located. Fed.R.Civ .P.
17(b). Pursuant to Oklahoma law, each organized county can sue and be sued. Okla. Stat.
tit. 19, § 1. The authority of each Oklahoma county is exercised by its board of county
commissioners, Okla. Stat. tit. 19, § 3, and a lawsuit brought against a county must be filed
against the board of county commissioners of that county. Okla. Stat. tit. 19, § 4. A county
jail is a subdivision of the county in which it is located, it no separate legal identity under
Oklahoma law, and therefore the Greer County Jail cannot be sued. See Lindsey v. Thomson,
No. 06–7114, 2007 WL 2693970 at *3 (10th Cir. Sept. 10, 2007) (unpublished op.)
(affirming dismissal of § 1983 claims against police departments and county sheriff's
department, entities with no apparent legal existence); White v. Utah, No. 00–4109, 2001 WL
201980 at *1 (10th Cir. March 1, 2001) (unpublished op.) (affirming dismissal of county jail;
although applicable state law provided that county may sue or be sued, no state law
supported directing a cause of action directly against a county's subdivisions, including its
jails); Aston v. Cunningham, No. 99–4156, 2000 WL 796086 at *4 n. 3 (10th Cir. June 21,
2000) (unpublished op.) (affirming dismissal of county jail as defendant in prisoner's § 1983
action on basis that “a detention facility is not a person or legally created entity capable of
being sued”); Reid v. Hamby, No. 95–7142, 1997 WL 537909 at * 6 (10th Cir. Sept. 2, 1997)
1
In addition it is unclear to the undersigned whether Plaintiff intended to name the City of Mangum
or Defendant Hopingardmer's insurance company as defendants.
2
(unpublished op.) (holding that “an Oklahoma ‘sheriff's department’ is not a proper entity for
purposes of a § 1983 suit”). Because the Greer County Jail is not a proper party, the Report
and Recommendation is adopted with regard to the recommendation to dismiss the jail.2
With regard to Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim stemming from his confinement
at the Greer County Jail, where he contends he was forced to sleep in a cell that contained
raw sewage, Judge Erwin concluded Plaintiff had failed to identify any individual that
personally participated in the alleged deprivation of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff's
objection to this portion of the Report and Recommendation stems from a misapprehension
thereof. Judge Erwin did not conclude that Plaintiff had not alleged sufficiently egregious
conditions at the jail. Rather, he concluded at page 8 of the Report and Recommendation that
"[t]he only Defendant even marginally connected to the Greer County Jail is Defendant
Medrano who Plaintiff identifies as an EMT throughout his Complaint except for one
reference on page four of the same in which he identifies him as 'Greer County EMT/Jailer.'
The Complaint is devoid of allegations demonstrating Defendant Medrano's personal
participation in any alleged violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights while Plaintiff was
confined in Greer County Jail." Doc. No. 11, p. 8. Because Plaintiff does not object to these
particular findings, the Report and Recommendation is adopted with regard to Judge Erwin's
recommendation that Plaintiff's condition of confinement claim regarding sewage in his cell
2
In his objection Plaintiff argues that the Court should disregard the parties he actually named and
construe his claims as being brought against proper parties. See Objection (Doc. No. 12, p. 2). The Court
cannot recast Plaintiff's Complaint to name new parties, which would place the Court in the role of advocate
for the Plaintiff. Plaintiff, however, is hereby granted leave to amend his complaint in an effort to name the
proper parties and to remedy other deficiencies as set forth herein.
3
be dismissed.
The Report and Recommendation also recommends dismissal of Plaintiff's claim that
the Greer County Jail lacked employees authorized to dispense prescription medications,
because Judge Erwin interpreted the allegations as attempting to raise issues on behalf of
other detainees rather than alleging violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. Plaintiff's
objection simply states "[i]n addition, by allowing untrained personal (sic) to administer
medications, the jail put all of the inmates['] lives in jeopardy." Objection, p. 3. Because
Plaintiff essentially concedes he is not seeking to vindicate his own rights, the Court concurs
with Judge Erwin and hereby dismisses Plaintiff's claim alleging constitutional violations as
a result of the absence of trained personnel to administer medications.
Plaintiff also alleges a claim for child endangerment based on the alleged danger to
an unidentified child that was riding with one of the police officers at the time Plaintiff was
pursued by police and subsequently arrested. As concluded by the Report and
Recommendation, Plaintiff fails to identify any legal basis by which he could hold any
Defendant liable for allegedly endangering the unidentified child. The Report and
Recommendation is therefore adopted with regard to Judge Erwin's recommendation at page
9.
With regard to Plaintiff's excessive force claims against Defendants Currid and
Medrano, Judge Erwin recommended dismissal because Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient
facts to support his claim of excessive force. In his objection Plaintiff states "[t]he actions of
the police officer are clear that when he pulled his vehicle in front of the allegedly fleeing
4
suspect, he intended to stop the suspect by causing excessive harm and perhaps death."
Objection, p. 3. The Court construes this argument as addressing Defendant Hopingardmer,
identified in the Complaint as the officer who used his personal car to stop Plaintiff's
vehicle.3 Plaintiff does not make arguments directed to his excessive force claim against
Defendants Currid and Medrano, and therefore, the Report and Recommendation is adopted
with regard to the recommendation that those Defendants be dismissed.
Judge Erwin also recommended that Plaintiff be granted leave to amend in the event
the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. The Court concurs with this
recommendation, and Plaintiff may file an amended complaint not later than November 18,
2015. Plaintiff's request for the Appointment of Counsel is, as recommended by Judge Erwin,
denied.4 The Court concurs with these recommendations as well. Although Plaintiff is not
skilled in the law, the allegations he presents are not factually or legally complex. The Court
anticipates it will not be difficult for Plaintiff to rectify the lack of clarity in his initial
Complaint by following the guidance provided by this Order and the Report and
Recommendation. Both should permit Plaintiff to tailor his pleadings to conform to the
requirements for properly pleading a claim. Plaintiff should be also aware that when the form
Civil Rights Complaint requests "Supporting Facts," that merely citing to evidence he
believes will be available will not suffice. Rather, he should follow the instructions set forth
3
Judge Erwin concluded Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Hopingardmer survived screening under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A, and Plaintiff does not object to this recommendation, which is therefore
adopted.
4
The Court also denies Plaintiff's Motion to Obtain Records in Forma Pauperis.
5
on the form by including "[a]ll facts he considers important, including the names of persons
involved, places and date. Describe exactly how each defendant is involved. State the facts
clearly in your own words without citing legal authority or argument." See Doc. 1, p. 5. The
appointment of counsel is not warranted.
For the reasons set forth herein, the Report and Recommendation is hereby adopted
in its entirety. This matter is hereby re-referred to Judge Erwin for additional proceedings.
Plaintiff may file an amended complaint to address the deficiencies identified herein and in
the Report and Recommendation, should he so desire, not later than November 18, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of October, 2015.
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?