# Yelton v. Board of County Commissioners of Canadian County

> District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · July 27, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10390344

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
- **Decided:** July 27, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10390344

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

DANNY YELTON, as Special )
Administrator of the Estate of )
LESLEY SARA HENDRIX, )
a/k/a LESLEY SARA YELTON, )
deceased, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-21-1001-G
)
BOARD OF COUNTY )
COMMISSIONERS OF )
CANADIAN COUNTY et al., )
)
Defendants. )

ORDER
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint (Doc. No. 10). Defendants have filed Responses in Opposition to the Motion
(Doc. Nos. 14, 18), and Plaintiff has filed a Reply (Doc. No. 17).
I. Procedural Background
Plaintiff Danny Yelton, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Lesley Sara
Hendrix, a/k/a Lesley Sara Yelton, deceased, initiated this action in the District Court of
Canadian County, Oklahoma, on September 9, 2021, against Defendants Board of County
Commissioners of Canadian County (the “Board”), Turn Key Health Clinics, LLC (“Turn
Key”); Canadian County Sheriff Chris West (“West”), Canadian County Sheriff’s Office
(the “Sheriff’s Office”), Kristie Carter (“Carter”), and Does I through X. See Doc. Nos. 1-
1, 1-2.
The current operative pleading, the Amended Petition (Doc. No. 1-8), alleges the
following: 1) a claim against all Defendants brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
violation of Ms. Hendrix’s Fourteenth Amendment right to receive adequate medical care;

2) a claim against all Defendants brought pursuant to § 1983 for violation of Ms. Hendrix’s
Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due process; 3) a claim against all Defendants
for violation of article II, sections 7 and 9 of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma; 4)
a claim against all Defendants brought under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act
for negligence/wrongful death; 5) a claim for supervisor liability against Defendant West

in his official capacity brought pursuant to § 1983; and 6) a claim for municipal liability
against Turn Key brought pursuant to § 1983. See Am. Pet. ¶¶ 25-69.
Certain of the defendants timely removed this action to this Court on October 13,
2021. See Notice of Removal (Doc. No. 1). Defendants then filed three separate motions
to dismiss. See Doc. Nos. 6, 7, 8. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend

(Doc. No. 10), attaching a Proposed Second Amended Complaint to the motion as required
by Local Civil Rule 15.1. See Doc. No. 10-1.
After filing his Motion to Amend, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Withdraw and
Substitute (Doc. No. 15), seeking to withdraw the Proposed Second Amended Complaint
attached to his Motion to Amend and replace it with a corrected Proposed Second Amended

Complaint (Doc. No. 15-1). Plaintiff represents that Defendant Carter does not object to
the substitution, see Pl.’s Mot. to Withdraw & Substitute at 2, and no other party has
objected or otherwise responded within the time allowed under Local Civil Rule 7.1(g).
The Court will therefore consider the corrected Proposed Second Amended Complaint
(Doc. No. 15-1) in adjudicating Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend.
II. Applicable Standards

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) directs district courts to “freely give leave [to
amend a pleading] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Under this Rule,
courts enjoy wide discretion to permit amendment “in the interest of a just, fair or early
resolution of litigation.” Bylin v. Billings, 568 F.3d 1224, 1229 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Leave to amend should be denied only upon “a showing of

undue delay, undue prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith or dilatory motive, failure to
cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or futility of amendment.” Duncan
v. Manager, Dep’t of Safety, City & Cnty. of Denver, 397 F.3d 1300, 1315 (10th Cir. 2005)
(internal quotation marks omitted). “The party contesting the motion to amend has the
burden of proving that the amendment should be refused on one of these bases.”

Openwater Safety IV, LLC v. Great Lakes Ins. SE, 435 F. Supp. 3d 1142, 1151 (D. Colo.
2020).
III. Discussion
In his Motion, Plaintiff states that he seeks to amend the Amended Petition to
include “additional facts and allegations as to the conduct of the Defendants and in support

of his current claims, and to remove claims that were the subject of the Defendants’ motions
to dismiss,” specifically certain tort claims precluded by the Oklahoma Governmental Tort
Claims Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 151 (the “OGTCA”). Pl.’s Mot. to Amend at 1-2.
Defendants Turn Key, Board, Sheriff’s Office, West, and Carter oppose amendment,
arguing that the proposed amendment is futile and would be unduly prejudicial to
Defendants. The Court addresses these objections below.
A. Futility

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s request to amend should be denied as futile
because the Proposed Second Amended Complaint does not cure the deficiencies of
Plaintiff’s Amended Petition. See Doc. No. 14, at 2-3; Doc. No. 18, at 2-3. “The futility
question is functionally equivalent to the question whether a complaint may be dismissed
for failure to state a claim . . . .” Gohier v. Enright, 186 F.3d 1216, 1218 (10th Cir. 1999).

“The burden of showing futility rests with the defendants who assert this ground in
opposing the plaintiff’s leave to amend.” Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Kan. Dep’t of
Transp., 953 F. Supp. 2d 1176, 1181 (D. Kan. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Defendants do not meaningfully develop their futility argument as to the additional
allegations pled in the Proposed Second Amended Complaint. They instead refer the Court

back to the arguments made in the motions to dismiss, which address a different pleading
than the proposed amended pleading that is at issue here. This is not an adequate basis to
deny amendment at this stage. The Court had not ruled on Defendants’ motions to dismiss,
which were not fully briefed, when Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Amend. More
fundamentally, Defendants have not provided adequate briefing on the purported

insufficiency of Plaintiff’s claims—as pled in the Proposed Second Amended Complaint—
on which the Court can conclude that those claims cannot survive a motion to dismiss as a
matter of law. See Ellsworth v. City of Broken Arrow, No. 19-CV-34, 2019 WL 2567660,
at *3 (N.D. Okla. June 21, 2019) (“The Court cannot determine based exclusively on the
limited argument in Defendants’ Surreply, whether the SAC would be subject to dismissal.
. . . [T]he SAC is not so obviously deficient that the Court can find that it would be subject
to dismissal without the aid of the Parties’ briefing on this subject.”).

Plaintiff pleads substantially more facts in the Proposed Second Amended
Complaint regarding the incident at issue and Defendants’ conduct than was pled in the
Amended Petition. In accordance with Rule 15(a)(2)’s mandate that the Court “should
freely give leave when justice so requires,” the Court finds that there is good cause to allow
Plaintiff to amend his pleading to plead additional facts in support of his claims and to

withdraw certain claims that he concedes are barred by the OGTCA.
B. Undue Prejudice
Defendant Turn Key argues that granting Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint
while Defendants’ motions to dismiss are pending before the Court would result in undue
prejudice to Defendants because if the Court allows amendment “Defendants will have to

duplicate and expound upon their previous efforts in drafting new motions to dismiss,
which will cost Defendants unnecessary time, resources, and attorney’s fees.” Doc. No.
18, at 3. The Tenth Circuit has explained that undue prejudice is “the most important . . .
factor in deciding a motion to amend the pleadings.” Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d
1196, 1207 (10th Cir. 2006). “Courts typically find prejudice only when the amendment

unfairly affects the defendants ‘in terms of preparing their defense to the amendment.’” Id.
at 1208 (quoting Patton v. Guyer, 443 F.2d 79, 86 (10th Cir. 1971)). Notably, “the
expenditure of time, money, and effort alone is not grounds for a finding of prejudice.”
Bylin, 568 F.3d at 1230. Accordingly, the fact that Defendants may choose to file
additional motions to dismiss and expend resources in doing so, at this early stage of
litigation, does not constitute undue prejudice.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw and
Substitute (Doc. No. 15).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED. Plaintiff may, within seven days of the
issuance of this Order, file his Proposed Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 15-1).
The filing of Plaintiff's second amended complaint shall supersede the Amended
Petition and render it of no legal effect. See Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp., 929 F.2d 1515,
1517 (Oth Cir. 1991). Accordingly, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the Amended
Petition (Doc. Nos. 6, 7, 8) are DENIED AS MOOT.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636, this matter is hereby referred to Magistrate
Judge Gary Purcell for preliminary review, for conducting any necessary hearings,
including evidentiary hearings, for the entry of appropriate orders as to non-dispositive
matters, and for the preparation and submission to the undersigned judge of Findings and
Recommendations as to dispositive matters referenced in 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B), and
(C).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of July, 2023.

CHARLES B 2 ODWIN
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10390344. Public record. Not legal advice.