United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
KENDRA CROCKER AND ALAN MORA, as Co-Guardians of ERIC GRANT, Plaintiffs,
VIC REGALADO, in his official capacity, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
TERENCE C. KERN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is the Joint Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 62) filed
by Defendants Vic Regalado (“Regalado”) in his
official capacity, the Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa
County (“BOCC”), and Armor Correctional Health
Services, Inc. (“Armor”). Plaintiffs oppose the
motion. (Doc. 67).
lawsuit arises from the assault and rape of Eric Grant while
he was in custody at the Tulsa County Jail. Grant's
co-guardians sued former Sheriff Stanley Glanz, in his
personal capacity; Vic Regalado, the current Sheriff of Tulsa
County, in his official capacity; the BOCC; and Armor,
asserting both federal and state court claims. Doc. 2.
Complaint alleges that Grant, who was arrested June 24, 2015,
on a “nonviolent misdemeanor charge of trespassing,
” was-at the time he was booked-“suffering from
obvious, known, and serious mental health disorders,
including schizophrenia.” Id. at 4. Plaintiffs
contend that despite this, “personnel at the jail
failed to take any of the necessary precautions to protect
[him] before putting him into a dangerous correctional
setting.” Id. They allege that although Grant
“should have received an immediate evaluation from a
mental health specialist, or, at the very least, an immediate
referral for a mental health evaluation, ” he was
instead cleared by the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office and
Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc.'s staff, to
enter the jail and was placed in general population with a
registered sex offender, Anthony Eugene Williams.
Id. at 4-5. Williams began to harass Grant almost
immediately. Id. at 5. Grant informed jail personnel
about the threats, and for a week prior to the assault and
rape by Williams, Grant asked to be transferred to another
cell. Id. Allen Mora, Grant's co-guardian, also
called the jail and informed the Sheriff's Office of the
danger to Grant and the need to move him to another cell.
Id. Plaintiffs allege that on or about July 7, 2015,
Williams pulled Grant from his bunk and brutally assaulted
and raped him. Id. The Complaint alleges that the
assault resulted from “longstanding, systemic
deficiencies in the medical and mental health care provided
to inmates at the Tulsa County Jail, ” and that Sheriff
Stanley Glanz had “long known of these systemic
deficiencies and the substantial risks to inmates like Mr.
Grant, but ha[s] failed to take reasonable steps to alleviate
those deficiencies and risks.” Id. at 6.
allege that Grant should not have been placed in a general
population cell, but once there, jail and medical staff
“should have been on high alert due to substantial
risks to [Grant's] safety.” Id. at 5-6.
asserted 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state constitutional
violation claims against Glanz, in his official and personal
capacities; Regalado in his official capacity, and BOCC and
Jane Does No. 1 and 2 (the “Doe Defendants”); and
municipal liability and negligence claims against Armor.
Glanz, the BOCC and Armor filed motions to dismiss pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Docs. 15, 20, 21. The Court denied
Glanz's and Regalado's Motions to Dismiss both the
official capacity and the individual capacity claims, and
granted the Motion to Dismiss the Jane Doe Defendants. Doc.
41. BOCC's motion to dismiss was denied.
Id. The Court granted Armor's Motion to Dismiss
the § 1983 claim, denied its motion to dismiss to the
state law claims of negligence and violation of Grant's
rights under the Oklahoma constitution, and denied as
premature Armor's claim of immunity under the Oklahoma
Governmental Tort Claims Act. Doc. 41.
appealed the Court's denial of his Motion to Dismiss.
Doc. 46. On September 24, 2018, the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed the District Court's decision in part,
ruling that Glanz was entitled to dismissal based on
qualified immunity. Doc. 54 (See Crocker v. Glanz,
752 Fed.Appx. 564 (10th Cir. 2018) (unpublished)). The
mandate issued on October 17, 2018. Doc. 29.
the remaining defendants-Sheriff Regalado, BOCC and
Armor-filed the pending motion to reconsider, arguing that
based, on the Tenth Circuit's ruling on former Sheriff
Glanz's appeal, the § 1983 municipal liability claim
against Sheriff Regalado, in his official capacity; the
Bosh claim against Regalado; the OGTCA/Bosh
claim against BOCC; and the common law negligence claim
against Armor must all be dismissed because the lack of
causal connection identified by the Tenth Circuit in the
Glanz appeal also defeats the remaining claims. Doc. 62.
motion to reconsider may be considered on the following
grounds: “(1) an intervening change in the controlling
law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the
need to correct clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.” Servants of the Paraclete v. Does,
204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing Brumark
Corp. v. Samson Resources Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 948 (10th
Cir. 1995)). In other words, when the court has
“misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or
the controlling law, ” a motion to reconsider is
appropriate. Id.; see Syntroleum Corp., 2009 WL
761322, at *1. Parties' efforts to “revisit issues
already addressed or advance arguments that could have been
raised in prior briefing” will not be considered.
Maul, 2006 WL 3447629, at *1.
Constitutional Claim ...