United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
J. CAUTHRON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is a Partial Motion to Dismiss filed by
Defendants Coffey, Coley, Norman, Cornish, Harris, and Kyle
(Dkt. No. 48) seeking dismissal of state law claims.
Plaintiff filed a Response and Objection to the motion (Dkt.
No. 52) and Defendants filed a Reply (Dkt. No. 54).
March 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed her Petition. Prior to the
Third and Fourth Amended Complaint, the below-named
Defendants were referred to as John Doe Officers of Cleveland
County Detention Center. On May 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed her
Third Amended Complaint and named Defendants Josh Coffey,
Coltan Coley, Dakota Norman, Saysha Cornish, and Josh Harris,
all in their individual capacities. On May 18, 2018,
Plaintiff filed her Fourth Amended Complaint and named
Defendants Josh Coffey, Coltan Coley, Dakota Norman, Saysha
Cornish, Josh Harris, and Kameron Kyle, all in their
standard for consideration of motions to dismiss brought
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is set forth in the Supreme
Court's decision in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544 (2007), and the subsequent decision in
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). In those
cases, the Supreme Court made clear that to survive a motion
to dismiss, a pleading must contain enough allegations of
fact which, taken as true, “state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 570. Plaintiffs must “nudge their claims
across the line from conceivable to plausible” to
survive a motion to dismiss. Id. Thus, the starting
point in resolving the Motions is to examine the factual
allegations supporting each claim that Defendants wish the
Court to dismiss. The Court will accept all well-pleaded
factual allegations in the Amended Petition as true and
construe them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party. Peterson v. Grisham, 594 F.3d 723, 727 (10th
Cir. 2010). However, conclusory allegations need not be
accepted as true. Kansas Penn Gaming, LLC v.
Collins, 656 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 2011).
argue that the claims alleged in the Third and Fourth Causes
of Actions (state law claims) are barred by the statute of
limitation because Plaintiff's Third and Fourth
amendments are outside of the one-year statute of
limitations. Defendants argue Plaintiff cannot substitute
named defendants because the Rule 15(c) doctrine does not
apply. (Def.'s Reply, Dkt. No. 54, p. 2). Plaintiff
rebuts that argument by stating her Fourth Amendment
Complaint relates back to her original Complaint. (Pl.'s
Mot., Dkt. No. 52, p. 4).
instance, the decedent, Austin Vance, was a pretrial detainee
in the custody of the Cleveland County Detention Center.
Pretrial detainees have been equated to “‘an
inmate in the custody' of a political subdivision of the
state for purposes of § 95(A)(11).” Fisher v.
Glanz, No. 14-CV-678-TCK-PJC, 2016 WL 1175239 at *9
(March 24, 2016 N.D. Okla. 2016). Under 12 Okla. Stat. §
95(A)(11) Plaintiff had one year to file suit; the Oklahoma
(A)(11) All actions filed by an inmate or by a person based
upon facts that occurred while the person was an inmate in
the custody of one of the following:
a. the State of Oklahoma
b. a contractor of the State of Oklahoma, or
c. a political subdivision of the State of Oklahoma, to
include, but not be limited to, the revocation of earned
credits and claims for injury to the rights of another, shall
be commenced within (1) year after the cause of action shall
have accrued. . .
12 Okla. Stat. § 95(A)(11). “A suit against an
employee in his or her official capacity, as a suit against
the governmental entity, must be based upon the claimant
presenting written notice of a claim within one year of the
date the loss occurs, or the claim is forever barred.”
Pellegrino v. State ex rel. Cameron University ex rel.
Board of Regentsof State,63 P.3d 535, 537
(2003). Plaintiff filed suit within the one-year statute ...