Hill

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

DALTON GAGE HILL, )

Administrator and Personal )

Representative of the Estate of )

Jeffery Allen Hill, deceased, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. CIV-24-1298-D

)

OKLAHOMA COUNTY CRIMINAL )

JUSTICE AUTHORITY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Plaintiff brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations

of Jeffery Allen Hill’s constitutional rights [Am. Compl., Doc. No. 53]. Plaintiff filed suit

against several defendants, to include the Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma

County (BOCC).

BOCC filed a Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 54]. Plaintiff’s response [Doc. No. 72]

was stricken as untimely [Doc. No. 76]. The magistrate judge issued a show-cause Order

[Doc. No. 75], directing Plaintiff to show cause why BOCC’s motion to dismiss should not

be deemed confessed based on Plaintiff’s lack of response. Following Plaintiff’s response

[Doc. No. 77], the magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to respond to BOCC’s motion on or

before May 21, 2025 [Doc. No. 86], which Plaintiff failed to do. The magistrate judge then

issued a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 98], recommending that the Court deem

as confessed BOCC’s motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against BOCC. The Court

adopted in part the magistrate judge’s report, agreeing that Plaintiff should not be permitted

to file a response to BOCC’s motion to dismiss, but re-referring BOCC’s motion to the

magistrate judge for consideration on the merits [Doc. No. 109].

On July 23, 2025, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation [Doc.

No. 121], in which she recommends that BOCC’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 54] be

granted. In her report, the magistrate judge provided the following factual background from

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 53]:

Mr. Hill pleaded guilty in Oklahoma County District Court to

leaving the scene of a fatal accident and driving a vehicle without

a valid driver’s license, Doc. 53, at 6. In January 2024, the state

district court sentenced him to a term of life in the Oklahoma

Department of Corrections, but he remained housed at the

Oklahoma County Detention Center after his plea. Id.

From January 9th through the 13th, Mr. Hill had notified two

separate John Doe Deputies about his ‘severe toothache’ pain. Id.

‘John Doe #2 … relayed the information to [Defendant] Logan’

‘on January 12, 2024, and January 13, 2024.’ Id. On January 18th,

Mr. Hill complained to jail medical staff about the pain in his

‘back right wisdom tooth.’ Id. That day, Nurses Rachel

Levingston and/or Christy Thompson scheduled Mr. Hill to see a

dentist on January 19, but the dentist was not in that day. Id.

‘On January 18, 2024, Dr. Winchester rescheduled the dental

appointment after Mr. Hill complained of wisdom tooth pain.’ Id.

Dr. Winchester prescribed five hundred milligrams of penicillin

to be taken ‘twice daily for ten (10) days’ with one refill for Mr.

Hill’s complaints of wisdom tooth pain. Id. Mr. Hill’s medical file

showed he was allergic to penicillin. Id. at 8.

On January 19, Mr. Hill called his son and complained about his

tooth pain. Id. at 6. Mr. Hill also voiced his complaint to Deputy

John Doe #2. Id. Mr. Hill was ‘moaning and grumbling to

himself’ for days in his cell and ‘stopped eating food’ for ‘at least

a week before his death.’ Id. at 7.

Three days later, ‘Mr. Hill was found in severe pain and

unresponsive by a detention officer in his cell.’ Id. at 6. EMSA

then transferred him to St. Anthony’s Hospital. Id.

The next day, Mr. Hill had emergency surgery and was ‘placed

on a ventilator through a tracheotomy.’ Id. Nurse Denise Kovach

reported Mr. Hill could not swallow because of swelling of his

neck and mouth. Id.

Terry Deason, DDS, examined Mr. Hill, noted his severe reaction

to penicillin, and noted Mr. Hill ‘had to be hospitalized and while

there, had his wisdom tooth removed.’ Id. at 7. No one had

extracted Mr. Hill’s tooth, however. Id.

On January 29, Mr. Hill became septic with multi-organ failure,

and died the following day. Id.

[Doc. No. 121, at 2-3].

BOCC is a county, which implicates municipal liability. See, e.g., Monell v. Dep’t

of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).1 To state a § 1983 claim against BOCC, Plaintiff

must allege (1) the existence of a BOCC policy or custom, (2) a direct causal link between

BOCC’s policy or custom and a constitutional injury, and (3) that BOCC acted with

deliberate indifference. See Prince v. Sheriff of Carter Cnty., 28 F.4th 1033, 1049 (10th

Cir. 2022). In recommending that BOCC’s motion to dismiss be granted, the magistrate

judge determined that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint did not sufficiently allege the

existence of a BOCC policy or custom, or that any BOCC policy was causally linked to

violations of Mr. Hill’s constitutional rights. [Doc. No. 121, at 6-7]. The magistrate judge

further concluded that Plaintiff had not raised state-law tort claims or claims under the

Oklahoma Constitution against BOCC. [Doc. No. 121, at 8].

Plaintiff timely filed an Objection [Doc. No. 129]. First, Plaintiff maintains that he

is not required “to identify specific policies or confine allegations to one defendant at the

1 See also Cox v. Glanz, 800 F.3d 1231, 1254 (10th Cir. 2015) (applying Monell to a county).

pleading stage.” Id. at 3. To establish Monell liability for a particular defendant, Plaintiff

must first identify a policy or custom of that defendant. See Schneider v. City of Grand

Junction Police Dep’t, 717 F.3d 760, 769 (10th Cir. 2013) (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at

691-92). Although the Amended Complaint references “[c]ounty policies and/or customs,”

these were either alleged against all defendants generally or against other defendants, not

BOCC. [Doc. No. 53, at 8]. See Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1250 (10th Cir.

2008) (“[I]t is particularly important in such circumstances that the complaint make clear

exactly who is alleged to have done what to whom, to provide each individual with fair

notice as to the basis of the claims against him or her, as distinguished from collective

allegations against the state.”).

Upon review of the Amended Complaint, the Court agrees with the magistrate

judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff failed to specifically allege the existence of a pertinent

BOCC policy. Further, the allegations asserted against other defendants do not state a

plausible § 1983 claim against BOCC.2

2 In his Objection, Plaintiff appears to allege that anytime he states claims against OCCJA, it is

sufficient to allege those same claims against BOCC. He asserts that the policies alleged against

OCCJA are impliedly alleged against BOCC because “BOCC funds and oversees OCCJA,” and the

“BOCC approved and funded [the OCCJA’s] policies, making BOCC liable.” [Doc. No. 129, at 5].

However, Plaintiff cites to no authority for the proposition that BOCC is somehow impliedly liable

based on allegations of municipal liability against the OCCJA. Throughout Plaintiff’s response, he

combines the OCCJA and BOCC, but the policies identified in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint are

alleged as those of the OCCJA or Jail Administrators (Brandi Garner), not BOCC. Merely treating

the OCCJA and BOCC as one party is insufficient to state a claim against BOCC. Although the

County’s creation of the OCCJA in “no way guarantees immunity to [Oklahoma] County,” Plaintiff

must still sufficiently allege a claim against BOCC. Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint, he has failed to do so. Chichakli v. Samuels, Case No. CIV-15-687-D, 2016 WL 2743542,

at *4 (W.D. Okla. May 11, 2016).

Even if Plaintiff had plausibly alleged a BOCC policy, the magistrate judge further

determined that Plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection between the policy and the

violation of Mr. Hill’s constitutional rights. Plaintiff disagrees with the magistrate judge’s

conclusion that he failed to establish a causal link between BOCC’s actions and Mr. Hill’s

injuries. Id. at 3-4. In his Objection, Plaintiff asserts that “BOCC’s failure to fund and

supervise the jail’s medical operations resulted in the absence of dental services, the

prescribing of contraindicated medication, and delayed hospital transfer,” ultimately

resulting in Mr. Hill’s death. [Doc. No. 129, at 3-4]. This, however, is insufficient to allege

the “direct causal link” between a BOCC policy or custom and a constitutional injury for

purposes of alleging municipal liability.

Plaintiff maintains that his allegations of “systemic failings” are sufficient to support

a finding of municipal liability against BOCC. Id. at 2-3. Courts have held that a systemic

failure can serve as the underlying constitutional violation for purposes of Monell liability.

See Lucas v. Turn Key Health Clinics, LLC, 58 F.4th 1127, 1144 (10th Cir. 2023) (“[I]t

was error for the district court to not consider a systemic failure as the underlying

constitutional violation.”). Although Plaintiff repeatedly claims the existence of “systemic

failures” in his objection [Doc. No. 129, at 2-4], his Amended Complaint fails to articulate

facts sufficient to allege a systemic failure on behalf of BOCC. Further, Plaintiff points to

no facts to support his claim of BOCC’s systemic failures in his Objection.

For these reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No.

121] in its entirety, and BOCC’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 54] is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs claims against BOCC are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, but without

leave to amend.3

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3" day of December, 2025.

N,Q. QuPt

TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI

Chief United States District Judge

3“Where a plaintiff does not move for permission to amend the complaint, the district court

commits no error by not granting such leave.” Burnett v. Mortg. Elec. Regis. Sys., Inc., 706 F.3d

1231, 1238 n.4 (0th Cir. 2013). A district court may properly require a plaintiff to file a motion

that complies with FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a) and LCvR15.1 before considering whether to allow an

amendment. See Brooks v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, 985 F.3d 1272, 1283 (10th Cir. 2021); see also

Hall v. Witteman, 584 F.3d 859, 868 (10th Cir. 2009) (finding that plaintiff “must give adequate

notice to the district court and to the opposing party of the basis of the proposed amendment”).