Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Crocker v. Regalado

United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma

May 16, 2019

KENDRA CROCKER AND ALAN MORA, as Co-Guardians of ERIC GRANT, Plaintiffs,
v.
VIC REGALADO, in his official capacity, et al., Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          TERENCE C. KERN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before 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).

         I. Introduction

         This 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.

         The 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.

         Plaintiffs 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.

         Plaintiffs 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.

         Regalado, 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.

         Glanz 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.

         Subsequently, 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.

         II. Applicable Law

         A 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.

         III. Analysis

         A. Constitutional Claim ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.