Parks v. Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

ALLEN ALEXANDER PARKS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. CIV-20-205-D

)

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS )

OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

O R D E R

This case is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation [Doc.

No. 39] issued by United States Magistrate Judge Amanda Maxfield Green under 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Upon initial screening of the Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 27]

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and § 1915(e)(2)(B), Judge Green finds that certain parties

and claims should be dismissed but Plaintiff has stated plausible claims under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 that should proceed. See R&R at 29-32.

Plaintiff Allen Alexander Parks, who appears pro se, has filed a written objection

[Doc. No. 45] that is timely under the prison mailbox rule. Thus, the Court must “make a

de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or

recommendations to which objection is made” and “may accept, reject or modify, in whole

or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Liberally construing the Objection,1 the Court finds

1 “[A] pro se litigant’s pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent

standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” but “the district court cannot assume the role

for the following reasons that Judge Green’s findings and conclusions are correct and

should be adopted.

Upon de novo review of Judge Green’s analysis of the issues presented by screening

the Amended Complaint, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s specific objections as follows:

1) Dismissal of two individuals described in various ways by Plaintiff but

identified in his pleading as “Defendant No. 8, ‘John or Jane Doe’ (Name Unknown) Head

Administrator of Medical Policy for Armor Correctional Health Incorporated

Headquarters” and “Defendant No. 9, ‘John or Jane Doe’ (Name Unknown) Head

Administrator of Medical Policy for Armor Correctional Health - OCDC Division.” See

Am. Compl., attach. 1 [Doc. No. 27-1] at 4 (ECF page numbering).2

Plaintiff argues in his Objection that Judge Green overlooks certain pages of

“Declaration Three” to his Amended Complaint that show medical administrators for the

corporate defendants participated in implementing an unconstitutional policy regarding

prescription eyeglasses and may have supervisory liability for the denial of prescription

eyeglasses to him. See Obj. at 8-10. Plaintiff’s allegations concern an established policy

stated in the Oklahoma County Detention Center’s Inmate Handbook that requires inmates

to make their own payment arrangements for prescription eyeglasses. See Am. Compl.

attach. 4 [Doc. No. 27-4] at 36 (Inmate Handbook, p.34). Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s

of advocate for the pro se litigant.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840

(10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991)).

2 Throughout this Order, all citations to Plaintiff’s filings utilize page numbers assigned

by the Court’s electronic case filing system.

pleading, the Court finds no basis for a plausible § 1983 claim against any administrator

employed by the corporate defendants for the alleged failure to provide prescription

eyeglasses to Plaintiff.3

2) Dismissal of official-capacity claims against all defendants except the Board

of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County (the “County”) and Armor Correctional

Health, Inc. (“Armor”).

Plaintiff does not object to Judge Green’s finding that his claims against Defendants

in their official capacities are redundant of claims against the entities subject to municipal

liability under § 1983. He instead argues that the proposed dismissals are premature until

Defendants are located and served. However, it is notice to the entity that is required to

impose liability, and the entities are named defendants to be served.4

3) Dismissal of § 1983 municipal liability claims against the County and Armor

for the alleged failure of nurses and jail employees to treat Plaintiff’s high blood pressure.

Plaintiff objects to Judge Green’s finding that his factual allegations fail to show the

alleged constitutional violation – withholding treatment in retaliation for Plaintiff’s filing

grievances – resulted from a municipal custom or policy of retaliation. According to

Plaintiff’s allegations, the conduct was directed specifically at him under directions from

Sheriff P.D. Taylor and Danny Honeycutt. This alleged conduct is addressed elsewhere in

3 See, e.g., Burke v. Regalado, 935 F.3d 960, 997 (10th Cir. 2019) (stating elements of

supervisory liability under § 1983).

4 Plaintiff also objects to a recommendation for dismissal of individual-capacity claims

against the entities. See Obj. at 2. Plaintiff apparently misunderstands the concept of “individual

capacity,” which applies only to individual defendants and not legal entities.

the R&R as a claim against Sheriff Taylor and Mr. Honeycutt. Plaintiff argues in his

Objection that Judge Green overlooks “Declarations Two, Three, Four, and Five” to the

Amended Complaint that show a widespread informal policy or custom of retaliation

against Plaintiff by denying him treatment. The basis of Judge Green’s recommendation

is a lack of factual allegations to show an official policy or custom of withholding medical

care from jail inmates as retaliatory punishment. Notably, the Inmate Handbook expressly

prohibits retaliation and reprisal. See Am. Compl. attach. 4 [Doc. No. 27-4] at 7, 26-27

(Inmate Handbook, pp.5, 24-25). After examining Plaintiff’s pleading and considering his

arguments, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible § 1983 claim of

municipal liability based on a policy of retaliatory denial of medical care to inmates who

filed grievances.

4) Dismissal of § 1983 municipal liability claim against Armor for the alleged

failure to provide Plaintiff with prescription eyeglasses.

Plaintiff objects to the finding that he has not stated a plausible claim against Armor

for the denial of prescription eyeglasses based on his same allegations and argument

regarding the failure of Armor’s administrators to deviate from the jail’s policy of not

furnishing prescription eyeglasses to indigent inmates. See Obj. at 34. For the same

reasons, the Court is not persuaded by this argument.

5) Dismissal of § 1983 municipal liability claims against the County and Armor

for retaliation against Plaintiff for exercising his First Amendment right to file grievances.

Plaintiff objects to the finding that he has failed to state a plausible claim against the

County and Armor for First Amendment retaliation based on his same allegations and

argument regarding a retaliatory policy of refusing to treat his high blood pressure. See

Obj. at 35. For the same reasons, the Court is not persuaded by this argument.

6) Dismissal of a § 1983 claim against Defendants for the violation of Plaintiff’s

rights under the Due Process Clause.

Plaintiff objects to a finding that he has failed to state a § 1983 claim for denial of

due process based on allegations that nurses and jail staff falsified his medical records to

prevent him from proving he was denied treatment of serious medical needs. Plaintiff

argues that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to pretrial

detainees and Judge Green overlooks a right of substantive due process.5 Plaintiff appears

to misunderstand the issue presented. Judge Green is addressing “Claim 5 – Denial of Due

Process (Deliberately Indifferent Malicious Falsification of Medical Reports).” See Am.

Compl., attach. 2 at 9. Judge Green recognizes Plaintiff had a Fourteenth Amendment right

to medical care and finds he has stated claims for violation of that right in his pleading.

See R&R at 9-10 (quoting Lance v. Morris, 985 F.3d 787, 793 (10th Cir. 2021), and Strain

v. Regalado, 977 F.3d 984, 989-90 (10th Cir. 2020). The issue presented regarding Claim 5

is a discrete right to accurate medical records. The Court is not persuaded that such a

constitutional right exists.

7) Dismissal of § 1983 claims against the County, Armor, Sheriff Taylor, and

Mr. Honeycutt for failure to train or supervise the individual defendants.

5 Throughout the relevant time, Plaintiff was awaiting trial in a state criminal case. See

State v. Parks, Case No. CF-2016-7670, J. & Sent. (Okla. Cty, Okla. June 18, 2018), aff’d, No. F-

2018-628 (Okla. Crim. App. Jan. 16, 2020) (unpublished summary opinion).

Plaintiff objects to a finding that his pleading fails to state a plausible § 1983 claim

in “Claim 6 – Deliberately Indifferent Failure to Train and/or Supervise” (Am. Compl.

attach. 2 at 11). He relies in his Objection on the same allegations and arguments that he

presented in support of municipal liability claims for retaliatory denial of medical

treatment. See Obj. at 37-38.6 Upon examination, the Court finds no basis in these

materials for a claim of failure to train or supervise against the County or Armor for the

reasons stated by Judge Green. Plaintiff alleges the alleged constitutional violations

occurred as a result of retaliation directed specifically at him, not any deficiency in training

or supervision of subordinate employees.

In summary, for the reasons explained by Judge Green in her thorough 33-page

Report, the Court finds that this action should be dismissed as to some claims and

Defendants and should proceed only on the plausible § 1983 claims stated in the Amended

Complaint, which are summarized on pages 29 and 30 of the R&R and shown in the chart

on pages 31 and 32.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc.

No. 39] is ADOPTED in its entirety. This action shall proceed on the claims adequately

stated in the Amended Complaint, as identified on pages 29 through 32 of the R&R.

Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED as to Defendants Armor Correctional Health, Inc.,

Armor Correctional Health – OCDC Division, Head Administrator of Medical Policy for

6 Judge Green addressed this claim only regarding municipal liability of the County and

Armor because she found Plaintiff’s pleading stated plausible claims against Sheriff Taylor and

Mr. Honeycutt for their alleged direct participation in the underlying violations of Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights. See R&R at 26-27 n.2.

Armor, Head Administrator of Medical Policy for Armor OCDC, all Defendants in their

official capacities except the Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County, and

any individual-capacity claims against Defendant Board of County Commissioners of

Oklahoma County. Further, Plaintiff's § 1983 claims alleging falsification of medical

reports and failure to train or supervise are DISMISSED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 21 day of July, 2022.

\ by Q QP:

TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI

Chief United States District Judge