Wilson v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections et al

Filing 16

ORDER granting 11 Motion to Dismiss Case as Frivolous; granting [] Motion to Dismiss; granting [] Motion to Dismiss; granting [] Motion to Dismiss. The Clerk is directed to remand this matter to the District Court of Oklahoma County, as more fully set out. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 12/21/15. (jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DAVID WILSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS VETERANS
ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL;
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION OF
MUSKOGEE; VETERANS
ADMINISTRATION OF ST PAUL;
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION;
DAVID PRATER; E SCOTT PRUITT;
CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY; OKLAHOMA
CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, OKLAHOMA
COUNTY JAIL; OKLAHOMA COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
OKLAHOMA STATE BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATIONS, and STAN FLORENCE,
Defendants.

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

CASENO CIV-15-1286-R

ORDER
Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant in the District Court of Oklahoma
County, which was removed by Defendants Veterans Administration of St. Paul, Veterans
Administration Hospital, United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of
Investigation and Veterans Administration of Muskogee. Certain Defendants filed
motions to dismiss prior to removal and renewed those motions in accordance with the
Court's Local Rules. See Doc. No. 6, Motion to Dismiss by Defendant David Prater and
E. Scott Pruitt;

Doc. No. 8, Motion to Dismiss, Oklahoma County Jail and Board of

County Commissioners; and Doc. No. 10, Motion to Dismiss by the City of Oklahoma
City and Kristy Yager and/or Chief Citty.1 The removing Defendants also filed a Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11). On December 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a packet of documents
that the Court will liberally construe as his response to the motions to dismiss pursuant to
Haines v. Kerner, 401 U.S. 519 (1972). Therein he states that he did not list the
Department of Corrections as a Defendant, and accordingly, the Court hereby dismisses
the Department of Corrections from this action. Furthermore, despite granting liberal
construction to Mr. Wilson's petition and his response, the Court finds that dismissal of
the claims against all of the movants is proper.
Defendants Prater and Pruitt seek dismissal on the basis that Plaintiff is attempting
to re-litigate claims previously dismissed by this Court, the United State District Court for
the Eastern District of Oklahoma, and the Tenth Circuit.2 Defendants complain the
complaint is too vague and incoherent to state a claim, that they are improperly named
and lack the capacity to be sued and that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
this case. Doc. No. 6. Defendants Oklahoma County Jail and the Board of County

1

Plaintiff's petition did not set forth a caption that included the names of any parties nor
did he include a list of Defendants in the petition. He states that the defendants are intended to be
the same Defendants as those he sued in Case No. CIV-13-117, which was filed in the Eastern
District of Oklahoma. The list of Defendants herein was likely extracted from the request for
service documents requested and/or filed by Plaintiff in the District Court of Oklahoma County
prior to removal.
2

In Case No. 12-1131-HE, Judge Heaton imposed filing restrictions on Plaintiff. Those
restrictions do not apply to this removed case, although this case suffers from many of the same
infirmities as his many prior actions.
2

Commissioners for Oklahoma County seek dismissal on the grounds that there are no
allegations against the Jail, the Jail lacks the capacity to be sued, Plaintiff's claims are
barred by governmental immunity, and the petition is so deficient that the parties have
been deprived of notice of the claims against them, in part because the petition is both
illegible and unintelligible. Doc. No. 8.
The City, Bill Citty, the chief of the Oklahoma City Police Department, and Kristy
Yager, sought dismissal because Plaintiff failed to timely serve process, failed to plead
compliance with the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act, the Petition fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, and that Plaintiff's claims are barred by either
issue preclusion or res judicata. Doc. No. 10. The federal Defendants seek dismissal on
the basis that the petition is incomprehensible, and in light of Plaintiff's history of
vexatious litigation, Plaintiff should not be granted leave to amend. Doc. No. 11.
The Petition filed herein contains copies of newspaper articles that are heavily
underlined, which Plaintiff contends establish violations of due process. Doc. No. 1-2.
The articles, however, have nothing to do with Plaintiff and thus cannot, even with the
most liberal construction, be used to support his claim against any Defendant. The
remaining portions of the petition rarely, if ever, address any of the named Defendants,
and where any particular Defendant is referenced, the facts affiliated with the name are
wholly insufficient to support any type of claim against the person or the entity.3 Plaintiff
3

Plaintiff also requests remand to state court in his Motion filed on December 9,

2015. Doc. No. 13-1, p. 4.
3

attempts to avoid dismissal by filing an untitled document on December 9, 2015. The
allegations therein, however, are not sufficient to avoid the motions filed herein. The
narrative provided therein is largely rambling and fails to clearly identify what claims, if
any, Plaintiff might legitimately have against any of the defendants herein. As such, the
Court hereby grants the motions to dismiss filed by The City of Oklahoma City, Bill
Citty, Kristy Yager, the Oklahoma County Jail, Scott Pruitt, the Veterans Administration,
in Oklahoma City, St. Paul and Muskogee, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation and David Prater. The sole remaining Defendant appears to be the OSBI
and perhaps one of its agents, Stan Florence. The case against those Defendants is hereby
remanded to the District Court of Oklahoma County pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1367, as the
Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any claim Plaintiff is attempting to pursue
against those Defendants.4

4

In light of the absence of the pleading of any true claims against any Defendant, the
Court concludes that it has dismissed all claims Plaintiff's petition did not set forth a caption that
included the names of any parties nor did he include a list of Defendants in the petition. He states
that the defendants are intended to be the same Defendants as those he sued in Case No.
CIV-13-117, which was filed in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The list of Defendants herein
was likely extracted from the request for service documents requested and/or filed by Plaintiff in
the District Court of Oklahoma County prior to removal.
4

In Case No. 12-1131-HE, Judge Heaton imposed filing restrictions on Plaintiff. Those
restrictions do not apply to this removed case, although this case suffers from many of the same
infirmities as his many prior actions.
4

Plaintiff also requests remand to state court in his Motion filed on December 9, 2015.
Doc. No. 13-1, p. 4.
4

In light of the absence of the pleading of any true claims against any Defendant,
the Court concludes that it has over which it had original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. '
4

For the reasons set forth herein, the Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 6, 8, 10 and
11) are hereby GRANTED and upon Plaintiff's representations the Department of
Corrections is hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to remand this matter to the
District Court of Oklahoma County.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of December, 2015.

1442(a)(1).
5