Bundy v. Sheriff of Garvin County et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
KENNA BUNDY, as Personal )
Representative of the Estate of Kayla )
Turley, Deceased, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-850-SLP
)
SHERIFF OF GARVIN COUNTY, )
in his official capacity, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
O R D E R
Before the Court is Defendant Noel’s Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support [Doc.
No. 24]. The matter is fully briefed. See Pl.’s Resp. [Doc. No. 37]; Def.’s Reply [Doc.
No. 41]. For the reasons that follow, Defendant Noel’s Motion is DENIED.
I. Introduction
In August 2023, Kayla Turley died while detained at the Garvin County Detention
Center (GCDC). In this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff, Kenna
Bundy, as personal representative of the Estate of Kayla Turley (Plaintiff), alleges that Ms.
Turley died as a result of the deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs by
Defendants, including Defendant Lynnsee Noel, LPN (Defendant Noel). Defendant Noel
moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against her on grounds that her conduct, as alleged in
the Complaint, demonstrates only negligent conduct which is not actionable under § 1983.
Case 5:25-cv-00850-SLP Document 45 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 6

2
II. Governing Standard
A party may move to dismiss a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6). Dismissal is proper when the plaintiff has failed to plead “enough facts to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). A claim is facially plausible when the complaint contains “factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Chilcoat v. San Juan Cnty., 41 F.4th 1196, 1207 (10th Cir. 2022)
(citation omitted).
“The court’s function on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is not to weigh potential evidence
that the parties might present at trial, but to assess whether the [complaint] alone is legally
sufficient to state a claim for which relief may be granted.” Dubbs v. Head Start, Inc., 336
F.3d 1194, 1201 (10th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). In reviewing the sufficiency of the
complaint, “[a]ll well-pled factual allegations are accepted as true and viewed in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Peterson v. Grisham, 594 F.3d 723, 727 (10th
Cir. 2010). However, not all factual allegations are entitled to the assumption of truth.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 680 (2009). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a
claim and other conclusory allegations need not be accepted as true Id. at 681 (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 554-55).
III. Discussion
Defendant Noel, at all times relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, worked as a nurse at the
GCDC and is alleged to have been responsible for overseeing Ms. Turley’s medical care.
Case 5:25-cv-00850-SLP Document 45 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 6

3
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges multiple instances in which Defendant Noel delayed and/or
denied medical care to Ms. Turley during an approximately three-day period of detention
at the GCDC, which immediately followed Ms. Turley’s discharge from the hospital for
treatment of abdominal pain and other symptoms.
“The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits deliberate indifference to a pretrial
detainee’s serious medical needs.” Crowson v. Wash. Cnty., 983 F.3d 1166, 1178 (10th
Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The two-part Eighth-
Amendment inquiry governs. Id. Objectively, the deprivation must be sufficiently serious
“to constitute a deprivation of a constitutional dimension”; and subjectively, a prison
official must know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.1
Defendant Noel concedes that “death is sufficiently serious to satisfy the objective
component needed to establish deliberate indifference.” Mot. at 12 (citing Martinez v.
Beggs, 563 F.3d 1082, 1088 (10th Cir. 2009).2 She moves for dismissal as to the subjective
component of a deliberate indifference claim arguing that Plaintiff “utterly fails to
adequately plead facts sufficient to satisfy” that component. See id.
1 Because Ms. Turley was a pretrial detainee, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for deliberate indifference
is governed by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Strain v. Regalado, 977
F.3d 984, 989 (10th Cir. 2020). “Section 1983 claims made under the Fourteenth Amendment for
deliberate indifference are evaluated under the same standard as section 1983 claims made under
the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference.” Smith v. Allbaugh, 987 F.3d 905, 910 n. 1
(10th Cir. 2021).
2 See also Burke v. Regalado, 935 F.3d at 960, 994 (10th Cir. 2019) (“An inmate’s death meets
[the objective component] requirement ‘without doubt.’” (quoting Martinez, 563 F.3d at 1088).
Case 5:25-cv-00850-SLP Document 45 Filed 01/26/26 Page 3 of 6

4
“A prisoner may satisfy the subjective component by showing that defendant’s
delay in providing medical treatment caused either unnecessary pain or a worsening of her
condition. Even a brief delay may be unconstitutional.” Mata v. Saiz, 427 F.3d 745, 755
(10th Cir. 2005) (citing cases finding delays of “fifteen minutes,” a “few hours” and
“several hours” as potentially unconstitutional). Additionally, jail and medical personnel
have important gatekeeping functions to ensure that a detainee receives proper medical
treatment. See, e.g., Sealock v. Colo., 218 F.3d 1205, 1211 (10th Cir. 2000) (delaying or
refusing to fulfill gatekeeper role may give rise to liability for deliberate indifference).
Moreover, jail and medical personnel may be liable for abdicating their gatekeeping role
when an inmate’s condition is worsening, particularly where, as here, discharge
instructions provide for a return for treatment if conditions worsen. See Paugh v. Uintah
Cnty., 47 F.4th 1139, 1160 (10th Cir. 2022).
Defendant Noel argues that the Complaint alleges, at most, inadvertent failure to
provide medical care and that such negligent conduct does not give rise to a claim of
deliberate indifference. See Mot. at 14 (citing, inter alia, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97
(1976)). In Estelle, the Supreme Court explained that “a complaint that a physician has
been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of
medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at 106. “Medical malpractice”
does not give rise to any constitutional violation. Instead, “a prisoner must allege acts or
omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs” because “[i]t is only such indifference that can offend evolving standards of decency
in violation of the Eighth Amendment.” Id.
Case 5:25-cv-00850-SLP Document 45 Filed 01/26/26 Page 4 of 6

5
The Complaint alleges that on August 4, 2023, Ms. Turley had been treated for
abdominal pain at the Chickasaw Medical Center. A physician provided discharge
instructions that advised that Ms. Turley could have a serious problem requiring surgery,
was needing to take antibiotics to protect against potential infection, and was to return to
the hospital with any “worsening concerns.” Compl., ¶ 1; see also id., ¶¶ 23-27.
Defendant Noel knew about these discharge instructions, but repeatedly failed to
ensure that Ms. Turley took her medication and failed to obtain additional medical
treatment for Ms. Turley, despite knowing that her condition was worsening. Defendant
Noel observed Ms. Turley unable to get up, unable to walk on her own, unable to stand on
her own, crying out in pain, and defecating on herself. Id., ¶¶ 53, 57-65, 80, 102, 104, 110.
Defendant Noel also watched a video showing Ms. Turley collapsing to the floor. She did
nothing to assist her or check on her. Id., ¶ 67. Additionally, Defendant Noel refused to
send Ms. Turley to the hospital even when urged to do so by jail staff. Id., ¶ 74. And
Defendant Noel failed to accurately complete a “Post-Hospitalization/Off-Site
Consultation Assessment” form and left blank the section describing the “plan” for Ms.
Turley’s treatment. Id., ¶¶ 78-79.
Upon review of Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court readily concludes that she has
plausibly alleged facts to show that Defendant Noel’s conduct satisfies the subjective
component of a claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs. The allegations
demonstrate conduct evincing deliberate indifference, not mere negligent conduct
amounting to a difference in opinion as to the proper medical care to be provided to Ms.
Case 5:25-cv-00850-SLP Document 45 Filed 01/26/26 Page 5 of 6

6
Turley.3 Accordingly, Defendant Noel’s Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support [Doc.
No. 24] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of January, 2026.
3 As alleged in the Complaint, Defendant Noel is one of several defendants who have been indicted
by a federal grand jury on criminal charges for deprivation of Ms. Turley’s civil rights based on
the same events as those that form the basis of Ms. Turley’s claims in this action. See United
States of America v. Jennifer Baxter, et al., Case No. CR-24-516-R (W.D. Okla.), Indictment [Doc.
No. 1], filed December 3, 2024.
Case 5:25-cv-00850-SLP Document 45 Filed 01/26/26 Page 6 of 6