Hill v. Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority et al

1
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 Major Bradley Logan, in his individual capacity.
Defendant Logan filed a Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 69]. Plaintiff filed a response [Doc.
No. 135], and Defendant Logan filed a reply [Doc. No. 137]. The matter was referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell for initial proceedings consistent with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C).
The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 139], in
which she recommends that Defendant Logan’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 69] be
granted in part and denied in part. 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
Case 5:24-cv-01298-D Document 150 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 9

2
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.
Case 5:24-cv-01298-D Document 150 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 9

3
On January 29, Mr. Hill became septic with multi-organ
failure, and died the following day. Id.
[Doc. No. 139, at 2-3].
“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). In her report, the magistrate judge first concluded that Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint sufficiently states a § 1983 claim against Defendant Logan based
on his alleged deliberate indifference to Mr. Hill’s serious medical needs. The magistrate
judge further determined that Defendant Logan had not adequately presented the defense
of qualified immunity. For these reasons, the magistrate judge recommended that the
Court deny Defendant Logan’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 69] as to the deliberate
indifference claim. The Court also recommended that the Court grant Defendant Logan’s
motion as to Plaintiff’s due process claim based on inhumane conditions of confinement.
In her report, the magistrate judge notified the parties of their right to object to
the report, and that the failure to object waives the right to appellate review of both
factual and legal issues contained in the report. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d
656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). Defendant Logan filed a timely Objection [Doc. No. 140].
Thus, the Court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made” and “may
accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also F ED. R. C IV. P. 72(b)(3). As
Case 5:24-cv-01298-D Document 150 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 9

4
Plaintiff failed to file a timely objection, he has waived any objection to the magistrate
judge’s recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Logan based on
inhumane conditions of confinement. That claim will be dismissed.
In his Objection [Doc. No. 140], Defendant Logan contends that he had no
personal knowledge that Mr. Hill was not receiving adequate medical care. However,
viewing the allegations of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as true, Defendant Logan “had
personal knowledge that Mr. Hill was not receiving proper medical treatment, was not
eating, was immobile, and was in severe pain during his time at the Jail.” [Doc. No. 53,
at ¶ 42]. The Amended Complaint also alleges that “on January 12, 2024 and January
13, 2024, Mr. Hill complained about his [severe toothache] pain to Deputy John Doe #2
who relayed the information to [Defendant] Logan who in turn did nothing to assist Mr.
Hill.” Id. at ¶ 29. According to the Amended Complaint, Defendant Logan “failed to
ensure that Mr. Hill received the medical care he … obviously and desperately needed.”
Id. at ¶ 43. Defendant Logan asserts that the Amended Complaint is devoid of “any
factual enhancement” as to “how [Defendant] Logan acquired knowledge of Hill’s
medical treatment[,] how [Defendant] Logan knew that Hill was not eating, and how
[Defendant] Logan knew that Hill was immobile.” [Doc. No. 140, at 5]. But the Court
agrees with the magistrate judge that the allegations of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint—
taken as true—sufficiently allege that Defendant Logan had personal knowledge of Mr.
Hill’s serious medical needs.1
1 Based on the same allegations, the Court disagrees with Defendant Logan’s assertion that
Plaintiff’s claim against him is based solely on his supervisory role over other deputies. The Court
Case 5:24-cv-01298-D Document 150 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 9

5
Defendant Logan also contends that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to allege
both the objective and subjective components of a deliberate indifference claim. First,
“[t]he objective component of deliberate indifference is met if the ‘harm suffered rises
to a level of “sufficiently serious” to be cognizable under the Cruel and Unusual
Punishment Clause.’” Burke v. Regalado, 935 F.3d 960, 992 (10th Cir. 2019) (citation
omitted). “A medical need is considered sufficiently serious to satisfy the objective
prong if the condition ‘has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or is
so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s
attention.’” Hardy v. Rabie, 147 F.4th 1156, 1164 (10th Cir. 2025) (citation omitted).
Where a plaintiff alleges that he was harmed by a delay in medical treatment, the
objective component of harm “can be satisfied merely by ‘an intermediate injury, such
as the pain experienced while waiting for treatment and analgesics.’” Hardy, 147 F.4th
at 1164 (citation omitted).
Upon review of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the Court finds the objective
component met. Defendant Logan attempts to minimize the objective harm as a
“complaint of [a] toothache.” [Doc. No. 140, at 11]. However, the Amended Complaint
alleges that Mr. Hill told deputies about “severe toothache” pain and “difficulty eating”
on January 9 and 10, 2024, and again on January 12 and 13, 2024, when the information
was then allegedly relayed to Defendant Logan. [Doc. No. 53, at ¶¶ 27-29]. Days later,
Mr. Hill continued to complain about “pain in his back right wisdom tooth,” which he
finds that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint has sufficiently pled personal participation by Defendant
Logan for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6).
Case 5:24-cv-01298-D Document 150 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 9

6
reported was “sawn in half” on January 18, 2024. Id. at ¶ 30. Plaintiff further alleges that
“[a]fter a full week of complaining about his tooth, Mr. Hill was found in severe pain
and unresponsive by a detention officer in his cell and was transferred … to St.
Anthony’s Hospital on January 22, 2024.” Id. at ¶ 32. “[A]t least a week before his death,
Mr. Hill stopped eating food due to his tooth pain,” and was “immobile” and in “severe
pain during his time at the Jail.” Id. at ¶¶ 41-42. On January 23, 2024, Mr. Hill was
placed on a ventilator for an allergic reaction to Penicillin, and he died of sepsis on
January 30, 2024. Id. at ¶¶ 33, 38. Taking these allegations as true, the Court finds that
Plaintiff has met the objective component of deliberate indifference, requiring a
“sufficiently serious” medical need. See Hardy, 147 F.4th at 1165 (“Regardless of the
actual amount of time in pain caused by the delay [in treatment], Hardy alleged that he
displayed signs of extreme pain and suffering that would be obvious to a layperson in
Deputy Rabie’s position.”).
The Court further agrees with the magistrate judge that Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint 	sufficiently 	alleges 	the 	subjective 	component 	of 	Plaintiff’s 	deliberate
indifference claim against Defendant Logan. The subjective component “requires a
defendant to ‘both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a
substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.’” Hardy,
147 F.4th at 1165. “Deliberate indifference does not always require a direct refusal to
give an inmate medical attention.” Id. “A jail official exhibits deliberate indifference if
he ‘knows that his role in a particular medical emergency is solely to serve as a
gatekeeper for other medical personnel capable of treating the condition, and if he delays
Case 5:24-cv-01298-D Document 150 Filed 01/12/26 Page 6 of 9

7
or refuses to fulfill that gatekeeper role due to deliberate indifference.’” Id. at 1166
(citation omitted).
As 	stated 	above, 	Plaintiff 	sufficiently 	alleges 	that 	Defendant 	Logan 	was
personally aware that Mr. Hill “was not eating, was immobile, and was in severe pain”
due to his tooth pain in the days leading up to his death, and that Defendant Logan “did
nothing to assist Mr. Hill” and “failed to ensure that Mr. Hill received the medical care
he … obviously and desperately needed.” [Doc. No. 53, at ¶¶ 29, 42-43]. Taking these
allegations as true, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has adequately alleged that
Defendant Logan was subjectively aware of a serious risk of harm to Mr. Hill and
disregarded that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it. See McCowan v.
Morales, 945 F.3d 1276, 1292 (10th Cir. 2019) (finding subjective component met where
the detainee “repeatedly told the officer that he was in excruciating shoulder pain” and
the officer “delay[ed] [the detainee’s] medical care for approximately two hours until he
was sent to the detention center.”); see also Sealock v. Colo., 218 F.3d 1205, 1210 n.5
(10th Cir. 2000) (noting that, although the prison official did not cause inmate’s heart
attack, “there [was] factual evidence from which a jury could conclude that the delay
occasioned by his inaction unnecessarily prolonged appellant’s pain and suffering”). For
these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges a plausible
deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Logan.
In her report, the magistrate judge further concluded that Defendant Logan failed
to 	adequately 	raise 	the 	defense 	of 	qualified 	immunity 	for 	Plaintiff’s 	deliberate
Case 5:24-cv-01298-D Document 150 Filed 01/12/26 Page 7 of 9

8
indifference claim. The magistrate judge found that Defendant Logan “merely recite[d]
the qualified immunity standard, argue[d] that there is no constitutional right to medical
care and that as a result, ‘[he] is entitled to qualified immunity from suit.’” [Doc. No.
139, at 10-11] (citing Doc. No. 69, at 31). In his Objection, Defendant Logan merely
reiterates his argument that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint falls short of demonstrating
a constitutional violation, and thus Defendant Logan is entitled to qualified immunity.
Defendant Logan’s Objection is silent as to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that he did
not adequately raise the defense of qualified immunity in his motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant Logan has not preserved the issue for the
Court’s review. The Court further agrees with the magistrate judge that Defendant
Logan’s bare assertion of qualified immunity should be rejected.
Finally, the magistrate judge concluded that Defendant Logan’s request for the
Court to “decline to apply Estelle and its progeny” would require the Court to ignore or
outright disobey Estelle’s holding that cruel and unusual punishment may stem from
“deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners.” [Doc. No. 139, at 6 n.4]
(citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). In his Objection, Defendant Logan
maintains that he “was not requesting the Court to overrule Estelle,” but rather “offer[ed]
reasons why Estelle should not apply to the case at bar and emphasize[d] that stare decisis
alone should not end the analysis.” [Doc. No. 140, at 14-15]. Upon consideration,
nothing in Defendant Logan’s Objection leads the Court to reject the magistrate judge’s
conclusions as to the applicability of Estelle to the case at hand.
For these reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No.
Case 5:24-cv-01298-D Document 150 Filed 01/12/26 Page 8 of 9

9
139] in its entirety. Defendant Logan’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 69] is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s due process claim against Defendant Logan
based 	on 	inhumane 	conditions 	of 	confinement 	is 	dismissed 	without 	prejudice.
Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Logan survives dismissal.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12 th day of January, 2026.
. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:24-cv-01298-D Document 150 Filed 01/12/26 Page 9 of 9