Steele v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections et al

Filing 40

ORDER granting 36 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 30 days. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 1/31/2018. (mb) Modified on 1/31/2018 (mb).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JACQUELINE STEELE, as Next
Kin of MICHAEL STEELE,
Deceased,
Plaintiff,
v.
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

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

Case No. CIV-15-1238-D

ORDER
Defendants Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC), Kameron
Harvanek (individually and in his official capacity as Warden of Mack Alford
Correctional Center), Jim Farris (individually and in his official capacity as Warden
of Lexington Assessment and Reception Center), and Justin Jones (individually and
in his official capacity as prior Director of ODOC), collectively move to dismiss
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, insufficient
service of process, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
[Doc. No. 36]. Plaintiff has filed her response [Doc. No. 38] and Defendants have
replied [Doc. No. 39]. The matter is fully briefed and at issue.
Plaintiff Jacqueline Steele is next-of-kin of Michael Steele, who an inmate at
the Mack Alford Correctional Center (MACC) and Lexington Assessment and

Reception Center (LARC). She brought the present suit, alleging Defendants and
other unnamed ODOC staff (identified as John and Jane Does) were indifferent to
Mr. Steele’s medical condition, resulting in his death. In examining Plaintiff’s
Complaint,1 the Court found that Plaintiff had plausibly stated a claim for deliberate
indifference to Mr. Steele’s medical needs under 42 U.S.C. §1983; however, the
named individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff
failed to properly allege how said defendants violated Mr. Steele’s constitutional
rights [Doc. No. 35].2
As a result of the Court’s Order, the only remaining “parties” were the
unnamed John and Jane Doe defendants. Plaintiff has not sought leave to file an
amended complaint, and Defendants accordingly move for dismissal and an entry of
judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff has not served the John and Jane Doe
defendants in a timely fashion. In response, Plaintiff contends that further discovery
is necessary to ascertain the proper defendants and requests that this Court set a Rule
26(f) conference.

1

After the filing of her initial complaint [Doc. No. 1], Plaintiff filed two subsequent
amended complaints [Doc. Nos. 2, 23].

2

Plaintiff did not object to dismissal of all claims against ODOC and the individual
defendants in their official capacities; nor did she object to dismissal of her
negligence claims under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act. Therefore,
the only contested issues were whether Plaintiff had stated a claim upon which relief
can be granted under §1983 and whether Defendants were entitled to qualified
immunity.
2

Plaintiff is required to serve each Defendant with a summons and a copy of
the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1). If service is not made within 90 days after
filing of the complaint, the Court may dismiss the action against an unserved
defendant without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Here, over a year and a half has
passed since Plaintiff filed her amended complaint, and service upon the John and
Jane Doe Defendants has not been completed. The Court is mindful of Plaintiff’s
stated reasons for her failure, but finds these reasons unpersuasive in light of the
extensive period of time that has passed. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s failure to complete
proper service on the John and Jane Doe Defendants within the time limits prescribed
by Rule 4(m) is grounds for dismissal of her claims against them.
Nonetheless, as stated in the aforementioned Order, the complaint has stated
a plausible claim for relief for deliberate indifference to medical needs. Thus,
dismissal of this action is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to file an amended
complaint and issue timely service of process.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 36] is GRANTED as
set forth herein. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of
this Order or seek an extension of time to do so.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of January 2018.

4