The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DARRYL LESLIE FITZHUGH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-326-R
)
GOOGLE TRUST SERVICES, LLC., et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se,1 filed a Complaint naming the Oklahoma County
Detention Center as a defendant. The Oklahoma County Detention Center has filed a
Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 12] contending that it is not a proper party to suit. Plaintiff
responded in opposition [Doc. No. 13] and the matter is now at issue.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b)(3) provides that a defendant’s capacity to sue
or be sued is determined “by the law of the state where the court is located.” Under
Oklahoma law, “any person, corporation, partnership, or unincorporated association” and
“each organized county” has the capacity to sue or be sued. See Okla. Stat. tit. 12, §
2017(B); Okla. Stat. tit. 19, § 1. Applying this law, numerous courts have concluded that a
county detention center, “as a subdivision of the county in which it is located, has no
separate legal identity under Oklahoma law,” and therefore lacks the capacity to be sued.
Stout v. Whetsel, No. CIV-10-1327-HE, 2011 WL 2160788, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 10,
1 Because Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the Court liberally construes his filings but does
not act as his advocate. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
2011), report and recommendation adopted, No. CIV-10-1327-HE, 2011 WL 2149782
(W.D. Okla. June 1, 2011); see also Arps v. Eddie Warrior Corr. Ctr., No. CIV-05-892-C,
2006 WL 1451245, at *4 (W.D. Okla. May 18, 2006) (“Both this Court and the Tenth
Circuit have concluded that a county or local jail lacks the capacity to be sued because such
facility lacks an identity separate and apart from the county itself which, under proper
circumstances, is a suable entity.”); Tiesel v. Creek Cnty. Jail Med., No. 10-CV-753-GKF-
PJC, 2010 WL 5069855, at *3 (N.D. Okla. Dec. 3, 2010) (“While a city, county, or
municipality may be named as a defendant in a civil rights action, numerous courts have
held that governmental sub-units or departments are not separate suable entities and are not
proper defendants in a § 1983 action.”); Cox v. Whetsel, No. CIV-06-1192-M, 2007 WL
1796039, at *1 (W.D. Okla. June 20, 2007) (“However, even if the Oklahoma County
Detention Center was named as a defendant, it would be subject to dismissal for failure to
state a claim because a county jail in Oklahoma is not a legal entity with the capacity to be
sued in a § 1983 action.”).
In his response, Plaintiff states that the Oklahoma County Detention Center is the
“main perpetrator” of the assault forming the basis of this action and “[t]heir management”
placed him in danger. However, he provides no substantive argument that would
undermine the conclusion that the Oklahoma County Detention Center is not an entity
subject to suit.
Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 12] is GRANTED and Defendant
Oklahoma County Detention Center is dismissed from this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27" day of June, 2025.
DAVID L. RUSSELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE