Brown v. Oklahoma State of et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 5:25-cv-00296-SLP
Document 26 Filed 11/26/25 Page 1 of 11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
EDWARD RENARDO BROWN, SR., ) Plaintiff,
) ) )
v.
) Case No. CIV-25-296-SLP
)
STATE OF OKLAHOMA et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Edward Renardo Brown, Sr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil rights complaint against the State of Oklahoma and D.A. Fred C. Smith, of "CCDC," in his individual and official capacity. Doc. 1, at 1, 4.1 He alleges a violation of his Fifth Amendment due process rights and his Eighth Amendment rights, and he seeks punitive damages. Id. at 6-8. United States District Judge Scott L. Palk referred the matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Docs. 4 & 22. The undersigned recommends the Court dismiss the complaint without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim.
1 Citations to a court document are to its electronic case filing designation and pagination. Apart from alterations to capitalization, quotations are verbatim unless indicated.
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO

2
I. 	Screening.
Federal law requires this Court to screen complaints filed by parties
proceeding 	in 	forma 	pauperis 	and 	prisoners 	seeking 	relief 	against 	a
governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss the complaint, or
any portion of the complaint, if it is “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted” or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. §§ 1915A(b), 1915(e)(2)(B).
“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a
right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show
that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of
state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). The complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘“state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atl. 	Corp. 	v. 	Twombly, 	550 	U.S. 	544, 	570 	(2007)). 	“A 	claim 	has 	facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556); see also Gee v. Pacheco, 627
F.3d 1178, 1184 (10th Cir. 2010) (discussing Iqbal standard).
This Court construes “[a] pro se litigant’s pleadings . . . liberally,” holding
them “to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Case 5:25-cv-00296-SLP Document 26 Filed 11/26/25 Page 2 of 11

3
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991); see Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The Court, however, may not serve as
Plaintiff’s advocate, creating arguments on his behalf. See Yang v. Archuleta,
525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008).
II. 	Plaintiff’s background and claims.
Plaintiff is serving time in prison on two state felony convictions. In
Comanche County Case No. CF-2023-633, Plaintiff entered a no contest plea
in the state district court to first-degree manslaughter. See Oklahoma v.
Brown, 	No. 	CF-2023-633 	(docket 	entry 	dated 	Apr. 	25, 	2025),
https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=comanche&numb
er=CF-2023-633 (last visited Nov. 21, 2025).2 The court sentenced him to
fifteen years’ imprisonment to be served concurrently with a previous felony
conviction and two previous misdemeanor convictions.3 Id. (docket entries
dated Apr. 25 & May 2, 2025). Plaintiff filed a notice of intent to appeal this
2 	The undersigned takes judicial notice of the dockets in Plaintiff’s state
criminal cases. See United States v. Ahidley, 486 F.3d 1184, 1192 n.5 (10th Cir.
2007) (exercising “discretion to take judicial notice of publicly-filed records in
our court and certain other courts concerning matters that bear directly upon
the disposition of the case at hand”).
3 	These Comanche County misdemeanor convictions are for trespassing
after being forbidden, CM-2020-1603 (sentenced to six months in jail after no
contest plea), and malicious injury to property, CM-2020-1604 (sentenced to
one year in jail after no contest plea).
Case 5:25-cv-00296-SLP Document 26 Filed 11/26/25 Page 3 of 11

4
conviction and sentence on May 5, 2025. See id. (docket entry dated May 5,
2025). And in Comanche County Case No. CF-2020-84, a jury found Plaintiff
guilty of second-degree burglary and the trial court sentenced him to ten years’
imprisonment. See Oklahoma v. Brown, No. CF-2020-584 (docket entries dated
Oct. 21-22, 2024).4 The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed
this conviction and sentence on direct appeal on October 30, 2025. Brown v.
Oklahoma, No. F-2024-858 (docket entry dated Oct. 30, 2025).5
In 	addition 	to 	these 	convictions, 	Plaintiff 	has 	five 	previous 	felony
convictions in Comanche County for possession of marijuana (CF-1995-288),
possession of cocaine with intent to distribute (CF-1996-112), entering with
intent to steal copper (CF-2011-111), 	petit larceny after a former felony
conviction, and possession of paraphernalia (CF-2017-586).
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges his “5th amendment right has been
violated,” Doc. 1, at 6, his Eighth Amendment right has been violated, id. at 7,
and that Defendants “are guilty of ‘slander, defamation of character, racial
d[i]scrimination, malic[i]ous prosecution, [and] false imprisonment.’” Id. at 8.
He explains he was “charged with Assault w/a Dangerous Weapon and [he]
4
https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=comanche&
number=CF-2020-584 (last visited Nov. 21, 2025).
5
https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&
number=F-2024-858 (last visited Nov. 21, 2025).
Case 5:25-cv-00296-SLP Document 26 Filed 11/26/25 Page 4 of 11

5
went to trial and was found not guilty” Id. at 7. He seeks punitive damages as
relief. Id. at 7-8.
III. 	Plaintiff fails to state a claim.
A. 	Plaintiff sues immune Defendants.
1. 	The State of Oklahoma enjoys immunity from suit.
Section 1983 is a “remedial vehicle for raising claims based on the
violation of constitutional rights.” Brown v. Buhman, 822 F.3d 1151, 1161 n.9
(10th Cir. 2016). It authorizes relief against those who violate a person’s civil
rights while acting under color of state law. West, 487 U.S. at 48.
Every 	person 	who, 	under 	color 	of 	any 	statute, 	ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the
District of Columbia, subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen
of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof
to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured
by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured
in an action at law . . . .
42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a viable claim a plaintiff must allege that each
government official, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated
his Constitutional rights. See, e.g., Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1250
(10th Cir. 2008 (“[I]t is particularly important in [a § 1983 action] 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.”).
Case 5:25-cv-00296-SLP Document 26 Filed 11/26/25 Page 5 of 11

6
Plaintiff names the State of Oklahoma as a Defendant. Doc. 1, at 1. But
the State of Oklahoma is not a “person” under § 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t
of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 67, 71 (1989) (“[N]either a State nor its officials
acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.”).
And the State of Oklahoma is immune from suit. See Green v. Mansour,
474 U.S. 64, 68 (1985) (“Because of the Eleventh Amendment, States may not
be sued in federal court unless they consent to it in unequivocal terms or unless
Congress, pursuant to a valid exercise of power, unequivocally expresses its
intent to abrogate the immunity.”).6 While Congress did create a private right
of action under § 1983, it did not abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity from
suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Okla. Tax
Comm’n, 611 F.3d 1222, 1227 (10th Cir. 2010); see also Quern v. Jordan, 440
U.S. 332 342-45 (1979). Nor has Oklahoma waived its Eleventh Amendment
immunity by consenting to suit in federal court. See OKLA. STAT. tit. 51,
§ 152.1(B) (“[I]t is not the intent of the state to waive any rights under the
Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.”).
In short, § 1983 “does not provide a federal forum for litigants who seek
a remedy against a State for alleged deprivations of civil liberties.” Will, 491
U.S. at 66. The Court should thus dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against the State
6 	The Court may raise the issue of immunity sua sponte. Colby v. Herrick,
849 F.3d 1273, 1278 (10th Cir. 2017).
Case 5:25-cv-00296-SLP Document 26 Filed 11/26/25 Page 6 of 11

7
of Oklahoma for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2) (authorizing the court to dismiss a claim that “seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief”).
2. 	Defendant Smith enjoys immunity from suit.
a. 	Official capacity.
A 	state 	officer 	sued 	in 	his 	or 	her 	official 	capacity 	also 	enjoys 	the
protection 	the 	Eleventh 	Amendment 	provides. 	Colby, 	849 	F.3d 	at 	1278
(“Damage 	claims 	against 	state 	officers 	in 	their 	official 	capacities 	trigger
Eleventh Amendment immunity.”).7 “When a suit alleges a claim against a
state official in his official capacity, the real party in interest in the case is the
state, and the state may raise the defense of sovereign immunity under the
Eleventh Amendment.” Callahan v. Poppell, 471 F.3d 1155, 1158 (10th Cir.
2006) 	(internal 	quotation 	marks 	omitted). 	So 	the 	Court 	should 	dismiss
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Smith in his official capacity. Colby, 849
F.3d at 1278.
b. 	Individual capacity.
“A prosecutor is absolutely immune from civil liability for damages for
acts he undertakes ‘in preparing for the initiation of judicial proceedings or for
7 	See, e.g., Erikson v. Pawnee Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 263 F.3d 1151,
1153-54 (10th Cir. 2001) (affirming district court’s conclusion that “under
Oklahoma law, a district attorney is an arm of the state”).
Case 5:25-cv-00296-SLP Document 26 Filed 11/26/25 Page 7 of 11

8
trial, and which occur in the course of his role as an advocate for the State.’”
Butler v. Rainbolt, 2024 WL 3548936, at *2 (10th Cir. 2024) (quoting Buckley
v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993)); see Gradle v. Oklahoma, 203 F.
App’x 179, 182 (10th Cir. 2006) (“Prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity to
liability under § 1983 for actions ‘within the scope of their prosecutorial
duties.’” (quoting Arnold v. McClain, 926 F.2d 963, 966 (10th Cir. 1991))).8 This
immunity extends to “initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s
case.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976). “This is so even if the
prosecutor acted ‘with an improper state of mind or improper motive.’” Medina
v. Webber, 531 F. App’x 902, 903 (10th Cir. 2013) (quoting Shmueli v. City of
New York, 424 F.3d 231, 237 (2d Cir. 2005)).
Plaintiff’s challenge to Defendant Smith’s act of charging him with a
crime falls within the scope of prosecutorial immunity. So the Court should
dismiss Plaintiff’s individual capacity claims against Defendant Smith under
§ 1915A(b)(2). See, e.g., Carbajal v. McCann, 808 F. App’x 620, 632 (10th Cir.
2020) 	(holding 	that 	the 	prosecutor 	was 	absolutely 	immune 	despite 	the
8 	This Court “may properly exercise its § 1915A(b)(2) authority to pre-
screen 	cases 	and 	dismiss 	a 	prisoner’s 	§ 	1983 	claim 	based 	on 	absolute
prosecutorial 	immunity 	without 	waiting 	for 	Defendant 	to 	invoke 	that
immunity.” Ford v. Hinsperger, No. CIV-21-493-R, 2022 WL 357189, at *2
(W.D. Okla. Feb. 7, 2022) (citing Blair v. Osborn, 777 F. App’x 926, 928-29 (10th
Cir. 2019)).
Case 5:25-cv-00296-SLP Document 26 Filed 11/26/25 Page 8 of 11

9
plaintiff’s allegations that the prosecutor had presented “groundless” charges
and was attempting to “wrongfully” prosecute him).9
B. 	Plaintiff’s allegations do not satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
A complaint must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. The twin purposes of a
complaint are “to give opposing parties fair notice of the basis of the claim
against them so [ ] they may respond” and to allow the court to conclude that
the allegations, if proven, show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Monument
Builders of Greater Kan. City, Inc. v. Am. Cemetery Ass’n of Kan., 891 F.2d
1473, 1480 (10th Cir. 1989) (quoting Perington Wholesale, Inc. v. Burger King
Corp., 631 F.2d 1369, 1371 (10th Cir. 1979)). Rule 8(a) provides that a
complaint “must contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court’s jurisdiction . . .; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought . . . .”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). “Detailed allegations are unnecessary, but the complaint
must contain something more than ‘unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-
harmed-me accusation[s].’” Eaves v. Kory, 2024 WL 2764136, at *1 (10th Cir.
2024) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
9 	The undersigned notes Defendant Smith resigned from his position as
Comanche 	County 	District 	Attorney 	on 	July 	1, 	2021. 	See
https://www.kswo.com/2021/07/01/district-attorney-fred-smith-retires/ 	(last
visited Nov. 21, 2025). The undersigned takes judicial notice of the published
report of Defendant Smith’s resignation. See Ahidley, 486 F.3d at 1192 n.5.
Case 5:25-cv-00296-SLP Document 26 Filed 11/26/25 Page 9 of 11

10
Plaintiff's contentions do not comply with Rule 8. Plaintiff alleges he
“was charged with Assault w/a Dangerous weapon and [] went to trial and was
found ‘not guilty.” Doc. 1, at 7. He seeks an award of punitive damages, because
Defendants 	“are 	guilty 	of 	‘slander, 	defamation 	of 	character, 	racial
d[i]scrimination, mal[i]cious prosecution, [and] false imprisonment.’” Id. at 7-
8.
Plaintiff 	does 	not 	identify 	the 	faulty 	prosecution, 	nor 	can 	the
undersigned find any prosecution for which Plaintiff was found not guilty in
Comanche County (or any Oklahoma county) in the online searchable public
records. Plaintiff’s conclusory unadorned statements do not satisfy Rule 8.
IV. 	Recommendation and notice of right to object.
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned recommends the Court
dismiss this action without prejudice.
The undersigned advises Plaintiff of his right to file an objection to this
Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by December 17,
2025, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72. The undersigned further advises Plaintiff that failure to make timely
objection to this Report and Recommendation waives his right to appellate
review of both factual and legal questions contained herein. Moore v. United
States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). This Report and Recommendation
Case 5:25-cv-00296-SLP Document 26 Filed 11/26/25 Page 10 of 11

Case 5:25-cv-00296-SLP Document 26 Filed 11/26/25 Page 11 of 11
disposes of the issues referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the captioned matter.
ENTERED this 26th day of November, 2025.
Suzan Neo
SUZANNE MITCHELL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11