Hill v. Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority et al

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. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before 	the 	Court 	is 	Defendant 	Board 	of 	County 	Commissioners 	of
Oklahoma 	County’s 	(BOCC) 	Motion 	to 	Dismiss. 	Doc. 	54.1 	Plaintiff,
administrator and personal representative of his father Jeffery Allen Hill’s
estate, filed an amended complaint seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
Article II, § 9 of the Oklahoma Constitution, after his father (Mr. Hill) perished
as an inmate at the Oklahoma County Detention Center. Doc. 53. Chief United
States 	District 	Judge 	Timothy 	D. 	DeGiusti 	referred 	the 	matter 	to 	the
undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C.
1 	Citations to a court document are to its electronic case filing designation
and pagination. Except for capitalization, quotations are verbatim unless
otherwise indicated.
Case 5:24-cv-01298-D Document 121 Filed 07/23/25 Page 1 of 9

2
§ 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Doc. 58; see also Doc. 109. 2 Upon review, the undersigned
recommends the Court grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
I. 	Factual background.
Mr. Hill pleaded guilty in Oklahoma County District Court to leaving the
scene of a fatal accident and driving a vehicle 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 DOC, but he remained housed at the Oklahoma County Detention
Center after his plea. Id.
From January 9th though 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.
2 	On June 9, 2025, Chief Judge DeGiusti adopted the undersigned’s
recommendation to dismiss BOCC, in part, and ruled that Plaintiff was not
permitted to file a response to BOCC’s motion to dismiss due to his failure to
timely file a response or seek leave of court for an extension. Doc. 109. BOCC’s
motion was re-referred to the undersigned by Chief Judge DeGiusti for a
decision on the merits. Id. at 4-5.
Case 5:24-cv-01298-D Document 121 Filed 07/23/25 Page 2 of 9

3
“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 121 Filed 07/23/25 Page 3 of 9

4
On January 29, Mr. Hill became septic with multi-organ failure and died
the following day. Id.
II. 	Standard of review.
“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). “[A] 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)).3 	“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, 1184-85 (10th Cir. 2010). “[I]n deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a
federal court may only consider facts alleged within the complaint.” County of
Santa Fe v. Pub. Serv. Co. of N.M., 311 F.3d 1031, 1035 (10th Cir. 2002).
3 	“[E]ven if a plaintiff does not file a response to a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, the district court must still examine the allegations in
the plaintiff’s complaint and determine whether the plaintiff has stated a claim
upon which relief can be granted.” Issa v. Comp USA, 354 F.3d 1174, 1178
(10th Cir. 2003).
Case 5:24-cv-01298-D Document 121 Filed 07/23/25 Page 4 of 9

5
III. 	Plaintiff fails to state a § 1983 claim against BOCC.
Defendant is a county, which implicates municipal liability.4 See, e.g.,
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978) (“[I]t is when execution
of a government’s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those
whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the
injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.”); Cox v.
Glanz, 800 F.3d 1231, 1254 (10th Cir. 2015) (applying Monell to a county).
But 	a 	county 	“cannot 	be 	held 	liable 	solely 	because 	it 	employs 	a
tortfeasor.” Monell, 436 U.S. at 691. Rather, to state a § 1983 claim against a
county, a plaintiff must identify “‘a government’s policy or custom’ that caused
[him] injury.” See Schneider v. City of Grand Junction Police Dep’t, 717 F.3d
760, 769 (10th Cir. 2013) (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 691-92). “[P]olicies
meeting this standard [are] those arising from ‘a formal regulation or policy
statement, 	an 	informal 	custom 	that 	amounts 	to 	a 	widespread 	practice,
decisions 	of 	municipal 	employees 	with 	final 	policymaking 	authority,
ratification by final policymakers of the decisions of subordinates to whom
authority was delegated, and the deliberately indifferent failure to adequately
4 	To sue a county in Oklahoma, a plaintiff must name as a defendant the
“Board of County Commissioners of the County.” Okla. Stat. tit. 19, § 4; see
also id. § 161(1). Or, if appropriate, the county officer in his or her official
capacity. Id. § 4. Here, Plaintiff has named the Board as Defendant. Doc. 53,
at 1, 6.
Case 5:24-cv-01298-D Document 121 Filed 07/23/25 Page 5 of 9

6
train or supervise employees.’” Hinkle v. Beckham Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs,
962 F.3d 1204, 1239-40 (10th Cir. 2020) (quoting Pyle v. Woods, 874 F.3d 1257,
1266 (10th Cir. 2017)).
After identifying such an official policy or custom, a plaintiff must then
establish that the policy or custom either (1) directly violated a federal right of
the plaintiff, or (2) was the “moving force” behind a county employee’s violation
of a federal right of the plaintiff. Id. at 1240 (quoting Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs v.
Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 405 (1997)); see also Graves v. Thomas, 450 F.3d 1215,
1218 (10th Cir. 2006) (holding a plaintiff must establish “a direct causal link
between the policy or custom and the injury alleged”).
BOCC maintains that “nothing in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint hints
at a causal connection between the medical practices and procedures of the
detention center and the Board of County Commissioners.” Doc. 54, at 30. The
undersigned agrees. Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege a policy or custom
promulgated by Defendant BOCC was the “moving force” behind the violations
of Mr. Hill’s constitutional rights.5 He references “[c]ounty policies and/or
5 	Plaintiff generally alleges against all Defendants that “[a]s a matter of
policy and/or custom, inmates at the Jail were not provided with: appropriate
or adequate medical assessments; medical treatment plans; mental health
assessments or evaluations; monitoring of medical or mental health; access to
mental health or medical personnel capable of and willing to, properly evaluate
and treat serious mental health or medical needs; emergent mental health
care; and/or precautionary measures to prevent injury.” Doc. 53, at 8-9. But
Case 5:24-cv-01298-D Document 121 Filed 07/23/25 Page 6 of 9

7
customs,” 	but 	proceeds 	to 	state 	that 	Defendant 	Brandi 	Garner 	as 	“Jail
Administrator,” id. at 2, “possessed responsibility” for these “policies and/or
customs.” Id. at 8. Plaintiff alleges policies of Defendant Oklahoma County
Criminal Justice Authority (OCCJA), such as “[n]onexistent mental health
and/or medical assessments, examinations[,] and treatment,” among others,
but he attributes these policies solely to OCCJA. Id. at 9.
As amended, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a valid § 1983 claim
against BOCC. See Soto for Est. of Jimenez v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Caddo
Cnty., 748 F. App’x 790, 794 (10th Cir. 2018) (“[A] § 1983 municipal liability
claim must include factual allegations that a particular municipal custom or
policy was the moving force behind the constitutional injury in order to
withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.”); see also Sherman v. Klenke, 653 F. App’x
580, 593 (10th Cir. 2016) (“There are simply no facts contained in [Plaintiff’s]
complaint from which an inference of such a policy can be gleaned.”).
Plaintiff fails to specifically allege that BOCC was behind these policies. See
Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1250 (10th Cir. 2008) (“[I]t is particularly
important in such circumstances 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 5:24-cv-01298-D Document 121 Filed 07/23/25 Page 7 of 9

8
The undersigned therefore recommends the Court grant BOCC’s motion
to dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against it for failure to state a claim. Doc.
54. The Court’s dismissal should be without prejudice.6
IV. 	Plaintiff has not alleged a state-law claim against BOCC.
BOCC asserts that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s state law claims. Doc. 54, at 2, 30-31. However, the Court does not
read Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint to assert a state law claim against BOCC.
See Doc. 53, at 9 (“Claims for Relief,” (citing only the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments and 42 U.S.C. § 1983).7 To the extent he raises a claim under the
Oklahoma Constitution, this claim is raised against other defendants. Id. at
12.
6 	The Court should grant BOCC’s motion to dismiss, but the undersigned
does not address BOCC’s request to “conclude there is no constitutional right
to medical care” in the prison context as established in Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97 (1979). Doc. 54, at 22. BOCC’s request would require the district court
to overrule Supreme Court precedent, which is entirely improper. See United
States v. Maloid, 71 F.4th 795, 808 (10th Cir. 2023) (“Only the Supreme Court
can overrule its own precedents.”).
7 	The undersigned notes that Plaintiff raises three claims for relief, but he
does not specifically name BOCC as a Defendant under the section headings
for any of his claims. Doc. 53, at 9, 11, 12. The undersigned reads Plaintiff’s
amended complaint as only stating grounds for relief under § 1983 against
BOCC. See id. at 3. (“BOCC is charged with ensuring the Jail has adequate
funding 	and 	resources 	to 	provide 	constitutionally 	sufficient 	conditions 	of
confinement.”).
Case 5:24-cv-01298-D Document 121 Filed 07/23/25 Page 8 of 9

9
V. 	Recommendation and notice of right to object.
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned recommends the Court
grant BOCC’s motion to dismiss, Doc. 54.
The undersigned advises Plaintiff of his right to file an objection to this
Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court on or before August
6, 2025, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
The undersigned 	further 	advises 	Plaintiff that 	failure 	to make 	a timely
objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate
review of both factual and legal questions contained herein. See Moore v.
United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
This Report and Recommendation does not dispose of all issues referred
to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in this matter.
ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 2025.
Case 5:24-cv-01298-D Document 121 Filed 07/23/25 Page 9 of 9