Opposition Brief — Beggs v. Boen

No. 10-432

In The

Supreme Court of the Gnited States

—¢

SHERIFF DEWAYNE BEGGS, JEANNE ANN BECK,

KENNETH ALBRECHT, and MICHAEL STEVENSON,

Petitioners,

ESTATE OF EVA JUNE CROWELL, DECEASED,

by and through ANNA M. BOEN, personal representative,

Respondent

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The

Supreme Court Of The State Of Oklahoma

ALBERT J. HOCH, JR. JEFFREY S. COE

HocH & ASSOCIATES Counsel of Record

803 Robert S. Kerr Ave. 6303 N. Portland, Suite 300

Oklahoma City, OK 73106 Oklahoma City, OK 73112

(405) 521-1155 (405) 818-5341

Fax: (866) 634-3132

Jeff@coelawoffice.com

Attorneys for Respondent

January 2011

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-696

OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

lL. Whether any unconstitutional custom, policy

or act of, or knowledge by, the Sheriff, as the final

policymaker, was alleged or shown.

2. Whether the Supreme Court of Oklahoma’s

opinion conflicts with important and settled federal

constitutional questions regarding the principle that

the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply in

cases brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

3. Whether the Supreme Court of Oklahoma’s

opinion conflicts with the state court of last resort

of numerous states with regard to principle of

respondeat superior under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

4. Whether the Supreme Court of Oklahoma’s

opinion conflicts with decisions of the United States

Supreme Court, and of the United States Courts of

Appeals.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

INTRODUCTION .

STATEMENT...............

REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT....

I THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME

COURT OF OKLAHOMA WAS BASED

UPON THE APPLICABLE STATE AND

FEDERAL LAW AND THE UNIQUE

FACTS OF THE CASE, NOT UPON THE

DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPE-

RIOR. THE DECISION OF THE SU-

PREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA DOES

NOT CONFLICT WITH DECISIONS OF

OTHER COURTS REGARDING § 1983

CLAIMS......

CONCLUSION ..

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Copeland v. Tela Corp., 1999 OK 81, 996 P.2d

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976)

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994)

Hutchinson v. Untted States, 838 F.2d 390 (9th

Cir. 1988).........

Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977)

Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512 (10th Cir. 1987)

Monell v. New York City Department

Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)...

Whitley uv. Albers. 475 U.S. 3121 (1986

STATUTES AND RULI

42 U.S.C. § 1983

57 O.S. 2001 § 52

12 O.S. 2001, ch

MISCELLANEOU:

W. Prosser,

ed.1971)

INTRODUCTION

The Petitioners in this matter would have this

Court believe that this is a case about the doctrine of

respondeat superior, which it is not. This is a case

about Eva June Crowell, an asthmatic inmate housed

at the Cleveland County jai! in Norman, Oklahoma,

who died, according to the medical examiner’s office,

of an acute asthma attack, after having been reck-

lessly delayed and denied access to her emergency

inhaler by the jail employees present at the time, all

of whom were acting under the control, direction, and

supervision of the Sheriff of Cleveland County. The

Respondent has alleged that these actions of the

Petitioners, including the Sheriff, constitute deliber

ate indifference to the deceased’s serious medical

condition in violation of her constitutional rights and

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

As with any case where the propriety of sum

mary judgment is at issue, this matter is very fact

intensive and, in the end, it was the disputed facts

presented in the evidentiary materials supplied by

the Respondent, not some deviation from the applica

ble federal jurisprudence, which the Supreme Court

of Oklahoma relied upon in reversing the trial court’s

decision to grant summary judgment. After duly

examining the law as it applied to the facts of this

case, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma’s decision rec-

ognized that considering all the evidence presented in

the light most favorable to the Respondent, a rea-

sonable fact finder could conclude that both the jail

employees and the Sheriff acted with deliberate

indifference to the deceased’s serious medical needs,

in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

———_—_—_—_<_<— @ —$£@___—____

STATEMENT

This appeal arises from the Supreme Court of

Oklahoma’s decision, filed on January 26, 2010, re-

versing the trial court’s order granting summary

judgment in favor of Petitioners.

Respondent Anna M. Boen, Personal Represen-

tative of the Estate of Eva June Crowell, deceased,

filed her Petition in the District Court of Cleveland

County, Oklahoma, on March 22, 2005, for personal

injuries and damages sustained by Ms. Crowell from

violation of her constitutional rights at the Cleveland

County jail.

Petitioners filed a Motion and Brief to Dismiss on

August 5, 2005. This Motion was granted as to the

state claims against the Petitioners but denied as to

the Respondent’s federal § 1983 claims, on September

15, 2008.

Petitioners filed their first Motion and Brief for

Summary Judgment on February 9, 2007. The Motion

was subsequently denied by the trial court on April 9,

2007.

After further discovery, including deposition of

the Respondent’s medical expert, the Petitioners filed

a Second Motion and Brief for Summary Judgment

on March 7, 2008. The Second Motion essentially

repeated the arguments of the first motion, adding

that the result should be different in this instance

because of certain statements made by Respondent’

medical expert at deposition.

The Petitioners’ Second Motion was denied on

June 6, 2008, but the court allowed in its ruling for

the Petitioners to request reconsideration at pretrial

conference on August 28, 2008. At pretrial, after

initially scheduling a trial date, the trial court heard

the Petitioners’ request to reconsider its previous

decision and subsequently sustained the Petitioner:

Second Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that

the evidentiary material submitted by the Respon

dent supported only a finding of negligence, and not a

finding of deliberate indifference

The Respondent filed her petition in error with

the Supreme Court of Oklahoma appealing the trial

court’s decision. The case was subsequently assigned

to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, which denied

Respondent’s appeal on December 18, 2008

The Respondent appealed the Court of Civil

Appeals decision by filing a writ of certiorari with the

Supreme Court of Oklahoma, which granted certio

rari. On January 26, 2009, the Supreme Court of

Oklahoma reversed the decision of the Court of Civil

Appeals affirming summary judgment against the

Petitioners herein, and held that the § 1983 claim

against the Petitioners should proceed to trial

REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT

THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME

COURT OF OKLAHOMA WAS BASED

UPON THE APPLICABLE STATE AND

FEDERAL LAW AND THE UNIQUE FACTS

OF THE CASE, NOT UPON THE DOC-

TRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.

THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME

COURT OF OKLAHOMA DOES NOT

CONFLICT WITH DECISIONS OF OTHER

COURTS REGARDING § 1983 CLAIMS.

The Petitioners primarily argue in their Petition

for Writ of Certiorari that the Supreme Court of

Oklahoma, in its decision below reversing summary

judgment, impermissibly applied the doctrine of re-

spondeat superior and ignored the applicable federal

§ 1983 jurisprudence in deciding potential labilit;

against the Sheriff in this case.

The doctrine of respondeat superior, which is left

undefined in the Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Cer

tiorari, acts to impose liability upon an employer for

torts committed by his employees even when the sole

nexus between the employer and the tort committed

is the employee-employer relationship. Monell v. New

York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658,

692 (1978), citing W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 69, p. 459

(4th ed.1971). It is clear from the caselaw presented

by Petitioners that the doctrine of respondeat supe

rior does not apply in § 1983 actions. However, the

decision of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma at issue

in this case simply does not rely upon the doctrine of

respondeat superior. The Respondent has never

alleged respondeat superior as a cause of action in

this matter, either in her original petition or any

subsequent pleading, and the Supreme Court of Okla

homa opinion here at issue never uses the words

“respondeat superior” and never holds that the doc-

trine of respondeat superior applies in any way to the

case at bar.

On the contrary, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma

opinion considered and applied multiple sources of

law, both state and federal, in arriving at its reasoned

decision below. The court noted that the Eighth Amend

ment to the United States Constitution prohibits the

infliction of “cruel and unusual punishments,” and

that multiple United States Supreme Court cases,

including Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 3121 (1986):

Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 670 (1977); and

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976), have

found that the unnecessary and wanton infliction of

pain constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

The opinion cites Hstelle, and Farmer v. Brennan,

511 U.S. 825 (1994), as authority for the principle

that “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs

of prisoners” constitutes cruel and unusual punish

ment under the Eighth Amendment, and the Eighth

Amendment applies to prison officials when they

provide medical care to inmates. See Estelle, 429 U.S

at 423. The court noted that a federal court in Hutch

inson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 393-94 (9th Cir

1988), held that deliberate indifference may be shown

when prison officials deny, delay, or intentionally

interfere with medical treatment. and it may

shown by the way 1T) which pri on official

medical care

|

In considering the issue of the Sheriff

responsibility, the Supreme Court again considered

several applicable federal cases, including Meade

Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1527 (10th Cir. 1987)

which the court found that although an “affirmative

link” must be shown between the alleged constitu

tional deprivation and the actions of a supervisor, the

link may be shown in several] different way n

cluding the supervisor’s personal participation, |

exercise of control or direction, or his failure to supe!

vise, and a plaintiff may meet this burden by showing

the supervisor breached a duty imposed by staté

local law

In analyzing whether or not the Respond:

shown enough evidence of the Sheriff uperviso!

responsibility to overcome a motion for ummar’

judgment, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma con

ered several factors, including the applicabilit

Oklahoma state statute, 57 O.S. 2001 § 5%

present case. 57 O.5. 2001 $52 provides that thi

sheriff of each counly 1n Oklahoma has a statutor

duty to provide “medical Care when require qd and Ail

necessities for the comfort and welfare of prisoner

The court concluded that pu uant to Meads tt |

Statutory language created a duty ol he part

Sheriff in the instant case to provide prisone!

including Ms. Crowell, necessary medi

incarcerated Lf vel; Yountyv 1a)

failure to do \ » the “affirmat

between his ; ons and » constitutional!

alleged by Petitioner The court did

OS. 2001 § 52 provide : : for findin

lability of the Sheriff independently of, or in contra

diction to, §° 1983 é rt merely

recognized a x) 1 , Z00]

of Oklahoma in it opinion aoe

federal yuri prudence

Petition for Writ yt Cos

the

LO

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ

of certiorari should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

JEFFREY S. COE

Counsel of Record

6303 N. Portland, Suite 300

Oklahoma City, OK 73112

(405) 818-5341

Fax: (866) 634-3132

Jeff@coelawoffice.com

ALBERT J. HOCH, JR.

HOCH & ASSOCIATES

803 Robert S. Kerr Ave.

Oklahoma City, OK 73106

(405) 521-1155

: ae eg: ee or

Attorneys Jor Responds T