Harris v. McCurtain County Jail Trust et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ROPER HARRIS, )
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-22-187-RAW-DES
)
McCURTAIN COUNTY JAIL TRUST, )
et al., )
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Before the court is the objection of the defendants to the Report and Recommendation
of the United States Magistrate Judge, in which he recommended that the motion to dismiss
of defendant Board of County Commissioners and defendant Clardy in his official capacity
be denied. In the First Amended Complaint (#41), plaintiff alleges that defendants Clardy,
Williamson1, and Manning arrested plaintiff at his place of residence in Broken Bow,
Oklahoma and used excessive and unnecessary force in so doing. After his arrest, plaintiff
was taken to the McCurtain County Jail. Defendants Scott McLain , Brandon Stansbury, Joe
1Williamson was recently dismissed without prejudice as a
defendant. (#171)
6:22-cv-00187-JFH-DES Document 174 Filed in ED/OK on 03/18/24 Page 1 of 4

Ebert and Cody Johnson, used excessive force on plaintiff and encouraged and permitted
other jail inmates to physuicaly attack and beat plaintiff without provocation, failed to
intervene to stop the attacks, and failed to provide medical attention and/or refused to permit
the timely administration thereof after plaintiff communicated his need for such attention.
As against the present movants, the amended complaint alleges claims for failure to train,
supervise or control (Third Cause of Action), for “Monell liability” (Seventh Cause of
Action) [both claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983] and a claim for unlawful use of excessive
force [Eight Cause of Action], pursuant to state tort law.
Defendants having filed a timely objection, the court must conduct a de novo review
of the issues specifically raised by the objection, and may accept, modify, or reject the
recommended disposition. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Rule 72(b)(3) F.R.Cv.P.
The Magistrate Judge first found that movants should not dismissed based upon
allegedly faulty service of process. Movants have not objected to this aspect. The court
finds “there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Rule 72(b), advisory committee note.
Next, the Magistrate Judge addressed the argument that the Board and Clardy in his
official capacity should not both be defendants as the claims are duplicative. The Magistrate
Judge engaged in a thorough discussion, noting that “Oklahoma district courts have presented
varied views on this issue.” (#101 at 6). He concluded that “at this time, the Board of County
Commissioners is a proper party to Plaintiff’s §1983 claims.” Id. at 8 (emphasis added). In
other words, the issue may be revisited (if necessary) at summary judgment.
2
6:22-cv-00187-JFH-DES Document 174 Filed in ED/OK on 03/18/24 Page 2 of 4

Movants argue that the Board “should not be required to bear the burden of the
inconvenience and expense of litigation.” (#103 at 2). Inasmuch as both defendants are
represented by the same counsel, such matters seem minimal. The objection will be
overruled in this regard.
Movants also contend that plaintiff has failed to state a plausible §1983 or state law
excessive force claim or failure to intervene claim against the defendants Clardy, Williamson,
and Manning (regarding plaintiff’s Third and Eighth Causes of Action against movants.) The
court has rejected this argument on the merits in a companion order, which is incorporated
herein by reference. As the Magistrate Judge stated: “at this time, Plaintiff has alleged
sufficient facts to state a plausible §1983 excessive force claim against Defendants.” (#101
at 9).(emphasis added).
Finally, the Magistrate Judge found that “at this time . . . Plaintiff has alleged
sufficient facts to state a plausible 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim against the Defendants in relation
to the operation of the jail; therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be DENIED.”
(#101 at 10)(emphasis added). The court is persuaded that dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)
should be generally disfavored, particularly in a case of this type. The discovery process and
the resulting motions for summary judgment will lead to addressing the same issues with
greater confidence in the result.
It is the order of the court that the objection of the defendants (#103) is hereby denied.
3
6:22-cv-00187-JFH-DES Document 174 Filed in ED/OK on 03/18/24 Page 3 of 4

The Report and Recommendation (#101) is affirmed and adopted as the order of the court.
The motion of the defendants to dismiss (#60) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of MARCH, 2024.
_________________________________
RONALD A. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
6:22-cv-00187-JFH-DES Document 174 Filed in ED/OK on 03/18/24 Page 4 of 4