The opinion
GOREE, J.,
concurring in result:
¶ 17 I agree that the trial court correctly dismissed the plaintiffs claim to recover damages for an alleged violation of Article II, § 7. But I am unwilling to join the majority in its assumption that the Oklahoma Constitution provides a private cause of action for violations of due process.
¶ 18 “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” is a guarantee designed to protect citizens from arbitrary and unreasonable action by the state. City of Edmond v. Wakefield, 1975 OK 96, ¶ 6 , 537 P.2d 1211, 1213 . Due process of law means “the enforcement of right or prevention of wrong before a legally constituted tribunal having jurisdiction over the class of eases to which the one in question belongs with notice to the party upon whom the law exhausts itself or upon whose property rights it operates, with an opportunity to appear and be heard in his own defense.” Grable v. Childers, 1936 OK 273, ¶ 14 , 56 P.2d 357 , 362.
¶ 19 “Private cause of action” refers to an individual’s right to commence an action to redress specific wrongful acts and omissions and recover damages. Morgan v. Galilean Health Enterprises, Inc., 1998 OK 130, ¶ 8 , 977 P.2d 357, 361 . Article II, § 7 guarantees fair legal process before a deprivation of rights. It does not provide a right of action to recover damages.
¶ 20 In Bosh v. Cherokee County Building Authority, 2013 OK 9 , 305 P.3d 994 , the Oklahoma Supreme Court considered a question of Oklahoma law certified by the Eastern District of Oklahoma. It answered: “The Okla. Const. Art 2, § 30 provides a private cause of action for excess force, notwithstanding the limitations of the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S. 2011 §§ 151 et seq.” Id. at 33. In Bosh , the Court included its rationale that the Governmental Tort Claims Act should not “render the Constitutional protections afforded to citizens ineffective and a nullity.” Id. at 23 . I do not interpret this or any similar language in Bosh as recognizing a broad scope of actionable claims based upon violations of constitutional rights, and therefore I disagree with GJA v. Oklahoma Department of Human Services, 2015 OK CIV APP 32 , 347 P.3d 310 .
¶ 21 In my opinion, the pleading under review fails to state a legally cognizable claim and it would be legally insufficient under any set of facts.