explaining that “infliction of injury on the plaintiff is alone insufficient” to impose municipal liability
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “infliction of injury on the plaintiff is alone insufficient” to impose municipal liability
- discussing elements of a municipal liability claim under § 1983
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
NICOIS M. SMITH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-24-752-R
)
GRADY COUNTY CRIMINAL )
JUSTICE AUTHORITY, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Plaintiff Nicois M. Smith, appearing pro se, brought this civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Grady County Criminal Justice Authority and
Grady County Board of County Commissioners. The Complaint [Doc. No. 1] asserts a
claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause and a claim for “obstruction of justice”
against these Defendants and describes an alleged assault that occurred while he was
detained at the Grady County Jail.
The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Amanda Maxfield Green
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Judge Green issued a Report and
Recommendation [Doc. No. 27] recommending that the Complaint be dismissed at
screening for failure to state a claim. In her Report, Judge Green explained that the named
Defendants are entities subject to municipal liability standards but the Complaint failed to
adequately allege that a municipal policy or custom caused a constitutional violation. See
Waller v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 932 F.3d 1277, 1283-84 (10th Cir. 2019) (discussing
elements of a municipal liability claim under § 1983).
Plaintiff timely filed an Objection [Doc. No. 28] which requires a de novo review
of those portions of the Report to which a specific objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Plaintiff’s Objection, although somewhat disjointed, argues that
both Defendants maintain policies that are responsible for the alleged assault. The
Objection asserts that the underlying incident is evidence of a policy, Defendants turn a
blind eye and foster a culture of violence at the facility, Defendants failed to train or
supervise jail employees, and administrators were aware of inappropriate conduct by jail
employees.
Upon de novo review, the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails state a claim
against the named Defendants because it does not include any factual allegations plausibly
suggesting that a municipal policy or custom caused a violation of his constitutional rights.
As for the additional assertions in Plaintiff’s Objection, these “new allegations are not
determinative of whether Plaintiff adequately stated claims in his Complaint.” Scott v.
Hormel, No. CIV-18-395-SLP, 2019 WL 3935101, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 20, 2019). In
any event, the Objection’s statements regarding the existence of municipal policy are
largely conclusory or otherwise insufficient to plausibly state a municipal liability claim.
See Coffey v. McKinley Cnty., 504 F. App'x 715, 718 (10th Cir. 2012) (explaining that
“infliction of injury on the plaintiff is alone insufficient” to impose municipal liability).
Plaintiff’s Objection offers no argument regarding the sufficiency of the factual allegations
in his Complaint nor does it contain any coherent argument regarding the existence of
additional facts that could be alleged in support of his claims.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and this action 1s
dismissed without prejudice to refiling. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20" day of November, 2024.
DAVID L. RUSSELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE