The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JA’LEE FOREMAN, JR., DANIEL )
HEDRICK, JOSEPH MITCHELL, )
and JOHN BASCO, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
-vs- ) Case No. CIV-21-1062-F
)
OKLAHOMA COUNTY SHERIFF, )
OKLAHOMA COUNTY CRIMINAL )
JUSTICE AUTHORITY, BOARD OF )
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR )
OKLAHOMA COUNTY, )
CHRISTIAN CHARLES MILES, and )
GREGORY CORNELL BUTLER, )
JR., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Defendants Christian Charles Miles and Gregory Cornell Butler, Jr. have
moved for partial dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims under Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.
Doc. no. 41. Plaintiffs have responded, opposing dismissal. Doc. no. 42.
Defendants have replied. Doc. no. 43. The matter is at issue.
Defendants seek to dismiss plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims to the extent
they allege violations of the Fourth and Eighth Amendments to the United States
Constitution. Plaintiffs’ claims, defendants assert, arise under the Fourteenth
Amendment rather than under the Fourth and Eighth Amendments because of their
status as pretrial detainees at the time of the alleged misconduct.
Plaintiffs acknowledge they allege they were pretrial detainees during the
pertinent timeframe but assert they have invoked the Fourth and Eighth
Amendments out of an abundance of caution. Plaintiffs assert that should discovery
reveal that any of them were an arrestee (for Fourth Amendment purposes) or a
convicted prisoner (for Eighth Amendment purposes) during the pertinent
timeframe, they do not wish to waive jurisdiction under those amendments.
Plaintiffs maintain that dismissal of any claim under the Fourth and Eighth
Amendments would be premature at this early juncture.
In reply, defendants point out that plaintiffs do not respond to the legal
argument that as pretrial detainees, their claims arise under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Defendants assert that plaintiffs’ concern about waiving jurisdiction
for any potential Fourth or Eighth Amendment claim is baseless because they can
seek leave to amend the complaint should discovery indicate the status of a plaintiff
as an arrestee or a convicted prisoner at the time pertinent to the claims. Such
amendment, defendants maintain, would relate back to the filing of the original
complaint.
Upon review, the court concurs with defendant’s arguments. The complaint
alleges the plaintiffs were pretrial detainees at “all pertinent times.” Doc. no. 1,
¶¶ 15, 28, 39, 49, and 76. As such, their § 1983 claims arise under the Fourteenth
Amendment rather than the Fourth and Eighth Amendments. See, Rowell v. Board
of County Commissioners of Muskogee County, Oklahoma, 978 F.3d 1165, 1171
(10th Cir. 2020); Colbruno v. Kessler, 928 F.3d 1155, 1162 (10th Cir. 2019). Should
discovery reveal that a plaintiff’s status was something other than a pretrial detainee
at the time of the alleged misconduct, plaintiffs may file a motion seeking leave to
amend their complaint to assert the applicable Fourth or Eighth Amendment claim.
Accordingly, Defendants Miles and Butler Jr.’s Partial Motion to Dismiss
(doc. no. 41) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims to the extent they
are based on the Fourth and Eighth Amendments are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. Defendants shall file their
answers to the remaining Fourteenth Amendment claims in plaintiffs’ complaint
within 14 days of the date of this order.
DATED this 27" day of June, 2023.
STEPHEN P. FRIOT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21-1062p013.docx