Beals v. Jay et al

Filing 88

ORDER ADOPTING 83 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; Gina Webb, District Attorney's Office and Oklahoma State of terminated; mailed to Timothy L Beals #235183 SAYRE-NFCC 1605 E Main Sayre, OK 73662. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 6/28/17. (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TIMOTHY L. BEALS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SCOTT JAY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV-15-922-C

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff filed the present action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Consistent with the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Shon T. Erwin. Judge Erwin entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on
May 10, 2017, recommending judgment be entered as to certain claims and that others be
dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff has objected to the R&R.
In the R&R, Judge Erwin sets out the history of this case. In summary, Plaintiff
filed his action alleging violation of his constitutional rights. According to Plaintiff,
Defendants illegally restricted his incoming and outgoing mail.

The present R&R

addresses Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Gina Webb, the District Attorney’s Office,
and the State of Oklahoma. Judge Erwin recommends entry of Judgment in favor of
Defendant Webb and dismissal without prejudice of the District Attorney’s Office and the
State of Oklahoma. Judge Erwin found that Defendant Webb is entitled to prosecutorial
immunity and that the claims against the District Attorney’s Office and the State of
Oklahoma are barred by sovereign immunity.

Plaintiff raises both procedural and substantive objections. Procedurally, Plaintiff
argues that he was not informed of the process to properly respond to the Motion.
Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s Motion violates LCvR7.1 and/or
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g) in that it improperly joins two Motions. 1 Neither objection has
merit. Plaintiff filed a proper Objection to the Motion for Summary Judgment and to the
R&R. The R&R’s recommended disposition is not based on some failure of Plaintiff to
provide a legal or factual rebuttal. Rather, the determinations by Judge Erwin are based
on operation of law and facts, which are undisputed. Finally, filing the Motion in the
alternative, as was done here, does not implicate the improper joinder of Motions
prohibited by LCvR7.1 or Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g).
Plaintiff’s substantive objections fare no better. Plaintiff argues that there are
genuine issues of material fact which preclude entry of judgment in Defendant Webb’s
favor. However, the facts Plaintiff recites do not address Webb’s entitlement to immunity.
As Judge Erwin noted, each of the acts undertaken by Webb arose as a result of her duties
as a prosecutor. Thus, she is entitled to immunity. Plaintiff also objects that Defendant
Webb’s actions were outside the scope of immunity because she acted outside her
prosecutorial role. This argument also fails. The facts, even as alleged by Plaintiff,
demonstrate that all actions taken by Defendant Webb related to Plaintiff’s mail occurred

1

The Motion is entitled “Defendant Gina Webb’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the
Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment.”
2

within the scope of her duties as a prosecutor. Thus, Defendant Webb, in her individual
capacity, is entitled to prosecutorial immunity and judgment in her favor will be entered.
Plaintiff’s objection to Judge Erwin’s sovereign immunity recommendation is
limited. Plaintiff does not dispute Defendants the District Attorney’s Office and the State
of Oklahoma are entitled to immunity on his claims for monetary relief. However,
Plaintiff argues that he has a valid claim for injunctive relief against these Defendants.
According to Plaintiff, not all of his mail has been released. Therefore, he should be
permitted to pursue injunctive relief. Plaintiff’s argument is counter to the evidence
before the Court. (See Dkt. No. 55, Ex. 18, p. 23.) Plaintiff offers nothing other than a
conclusory allegation to counter this evidence. Accordingly, he has failed to offer any
basis to support an injunctive relief claim.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against the

District Attorney’s Office and the State of Oklahoma will be dismissed without prejudice
based on sovereign immunity. 2
Accordingly, the Court adopts, in its entirety, the Report and Recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 83). For the reasons set forth in the R&R and this Order,
judgment will be entered in favor of Defendant Webb in her individual capacity. The
District Attorney’s Office and the State of Oklahoma are DISMISSED without prejudice.
A judgment will issue at the conclusion of the case.

2

To the extent Plaintiff attempts to raise claims against Defendant Webb in her
official capacity, those claims are also barred by sovereign immunity.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of June 2017.

4