United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
SHAWN SCOTT, a/k/a SHAWN JORDAN; and MELISSA HAWTHORNE, Plaintiffs,
VIC REGALADO, Sheriff of Tulsa County in his official capacity; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA; DEPUTY SHERIFF JAMISON HIRSCH, individually DEPUTY SHERIFF SCOTT STREETER, individually; DEPUTY SHERIFF JOSHUA VICTORY, individually; and DEPUTY SHERIFF MARK FACEY, individually, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
TERENCE C. KERN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Mark
Facey, Jamison Hirsch, Vic Regalado, and Joshua Victory.
(Doc. 33.) For reasons discussed below, Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
case arises from three separate encounters between Plaintiff
Shawn Scott (“Scott”) and deputies employed by
the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office, some of which also
involve Scott's son or Plaintiff Melissa Hawthorne
10/23/14 Arrest of Scott by Hirsch (First Cause of
factual details of the 10/23/14 arrest are summarized in the
Court's Opinion and Order of September 5, 2017. (Doc.
28.) Because this Court has already found Plaintiff's
First Cause of Action states a plausible claim for relief, it
is not necessary to discuss that arrest herein.
04/06/15 Arrest of Scott by Hirsch and Streeter (Second Cause
six months later, on April 6, 2015, Defendant Hirsch
conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle in which Scott was a
passenger. During the course of this traffic stop, Defendant
Scott Streeter arrived on the scene. Scott apparently asked
Defendant Hirsch and Defendant Streeter why they arrested her
son, and was subsequently arrested for obstruction of
justice. The obstruction charges have since been dismissed
“as being without probable cause and without any legal
basis whatsoever.” (Doc. 29, pg. 4.) Scott also alleges
that Defendant Hirsch and Defendant Streeter colluded to
accuse Scott of obstruction, and caused criminal charges to
be filed against Scott. Finally, Scott alleges that the
arrest and subsequent charges were intentional and malicious,
demonstrated racial animus, and were intended to rebuke Scott
for asking why Defendants arrested her son.
12/31/15 Arrests of Scott and Hawthorne by Victory and Facey
(Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action)
about December 31, 2015, Scott's son, who lives with
Scott, was driving the family automobile when he was followed
home by Defendant Victory. Defendant Victory was joined at
Scott's home by Defendant Facey and the two entered
Scott's home without consent, without probable cause, and
without a warrant, and arrested both Scott and Hawthorne.
Scott was charged with obstruction and resisting arrest, and
Hawthorne was charged with obstruction. Both charges were
dismissed on August 17, 2016. Plaintiffs also allege that
there was no probable cause or other legal basis to arrest
them, that Defendants Victory and Facey entering Scott's
home violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and that
their arrests were intentional, malicious, and demonstrate
racial animus. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
Victory and Facey wrongfully caused criminal charges to be
filed against them.
filed their Petition in Tulsa County District Court on
January 12, 2017. Defendants removed the case to this Court
on February 10, 2017. (Doc. 2.) Defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss the Petition on March 10, 2017 (Doc. 13), which the
Court granted with leave to amend as to Claims 2-7 on
September 5, 2017. (Doc. 28.) Plaintiffs filed their Amended
Complaint on September 7, 2017 (Doc. 29).
filed a second Motion to Dismiss on September 28, 2017. (Doc.
33.) In it, Defendants move for a dismissal of Claims 2-7
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
(“Rule”) 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Defendants Hirsch, Victory, and Facey, who are sued
individually, have asserted the defense of qualified
immunity. See Robbins v. Okla., 519 F.3d 1242, 1248
(10th Cir. 2008) (explaining that qualified immunity exists
to protect public officials from discovery that can be
disruptive of effective government).