“Under 1983, a plaintiff cannot sue an official in their individual capacity for injunctive or declaratory relief.”
How later courts described this case
- “Under 1983, a plaintiff cannot sue an official in their individual capacity for injunctive or declaratory relief.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DARRELL LYNN MADDEN aka )
DARRA LYNN MADDEN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
-vs- ) NO. CIV-25-0223-HE
)
STEVEN HARPE et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Plaintiff Darra Lynn Madden, a state inmate appearing pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed an amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting various constitutional
violations. Upon initial screening, United States Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin issued a
Report and Recommendation [Doc. #20] recommending that the court (1) dismiss with
prejudice the individual capacity claims for injunctive relief against all defendants, (2)
dismiss with prejudice the official capacity claims for injunctive relief against defendants
Jim Ferris, FNU Hart, and Bonnie Green, and (3) dismiss the official capacity claims for
injunctive relief against defendants Steven Harpe, Christie Quick, Nanci Battles, Chris
Etchison, Marshall Kirby, Sherry Mooney, Todd Minshall, Charles Step Paine, and Kim
Hall without prejudice.
Plaintiff has objected to the Report and Recommendation [Doc. #22]. Plaintiff
specifically objects to Judge Erwin’s recommendations to (1) dismiss the claims against
defendant Steven Harpe in both his individual and official capacities, and (2) dismiss the
individual capacity claims for injunctive relief against all defendants.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court has conducted a de novo review of the
matter. The court concurs with the recommendation to dismiss with prejudice the
individual capacity § 1983 claims for injunctive relief against all defendants, including
defendant Steven Harpe, and with the recommendation to dismiss without prejudice the
official capacity § 1983 claims for injunctive relief against defendant Steven Harpe.
With respect to the individual capacity § 1983 claims for injunctive relief against
all defendants, including defendant Steven Harpe, the Tenth Circuit has specifically
determined that “[s]ection 1983 plaintiffs may sue individual-capacity defendants only for
money damages and official-capacity defendants only for injunctive relief.” Brown v.
Montoya, 662 F.3d 1152, 1161 n. 5 (10th Cir. 2011); see also Chilcoat v. San Juan County,
41 F.4th 1196, 1214 (10th Cir. 2022) (“Under 1983, a plaintiff cannot sue an official in their
individual capacity for injunctive or declaratory relief.”). Here, as noted in the report,
plaintiff has sued defendants in their individual capacities for injunctive relief under §
1983. As a result, the claims are subject to dismissal with prejudice as recommended by
Judge Erwin.
With respect to the official capacity claims for injunctive relief against defendant
Steven Harpe, Judge Erwin recommended dismissal without prejudice because, with
respect to the Fourth Amendment claim, “the allegations . . . [are] insufficient to support a
claim based on a violation of ODOC policy[,]” and “as to the remaining claims [First,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments], Ms. Madden has failed to plead specific facts . . .
that any [O]DOC policy was a ‘moving force’ behind the alleged constitutional violations.”
Doc. #20, ECF p. 10 (citation omitted). The court agrees with that analysis with respect to
the claims against defendant Steven Harpe and those claims will be dismissed.
Judge Erwin also recommended that the court dismiss with prejudice the official
capacity claims for injunctive relief against defendants Jim Ferris, FNU Hart, and Bonnie
Green and that it dismiss without prejudice the official capacity claims for injunctive relief
against defendants Christie Quick, Nanci Battles, Chris Etchison, Marshall Kirby, Sherry
Mooney, Todd Minshall, Charles Step Paine, and Kim Hall. Plaintiff’s objections do not
specifically challenge these recommendations. The only official capacity claims she
addressed were the official capacity § 1983 claims for injunctive relief against defendant
Steven Harpe, which the court has discussed above. The court therefore concludes plaintiff
has waived appellate review of the report’s recommendations as to the official capacity
claims for injunctive relief against the other defendants. See Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595
F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Report and Recommendation [Doc. #20] is
ADOPTED. The 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for injunctive relief against all defendants, in
their individual capacities, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The § 1983 claims for
injunctive relief against defendants Jim Ferris, FNU Hart and Bonnie Green, in their
official capacities, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The § 1983 claims for
injunctive relief against defendants Steven Harpe, Christie Quick, Nanci Battles, Chris
Etchison, Marshall Kirby, Sherry Mooney, Todd Minshall, Charles Step Paine, and Kim
Hall, in their official capacities, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
In light of the above determinations, plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel
[Doc. #14], for certain discovery requests [Doc. #17], for production of documents [Doc.
#18], and making requests for admissions [Doc. #19] are STRICKEN as MOOT.
A separate judgment will be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 3" day of June, 2025.
~D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE