Barrios v. Haskell Cnty. Pub. Facilities Auth.
432 P.3d 233
Okla.2018Background
- Two federal courts certified whether Oklahoma inmates may bring state-law tort claims for denial of medical care under Article II, §§ 7 and 9 of the Oklahoma Constitution, and whether such a cause of action, if recognized, would apply retroactively.
- Underlying suits: estates of two inmates (Foutch and Barrios) sued jails, sheriffs, employees, and private healthcare contractors alleging § 1983 claims, negligence/wrongful death, negligent hiring/supervision, and state-constitutional torts based on Sections 7 and 9.
- Trial courts dismissed the state-constitutional tort claims in part, and certified questions about state sovereign immunity and the existence of a constitutional tort remedy to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court previously in Bosh recognized a judicially-created constitutional tort for excessive force (Art. II, § 30) outside the GTCA, prompting legislative amendments to the Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA) in 2014–2015.
- The Legislature revised the GTCA to define "tort" to include constitutional violations and to make the GTCA the exclusive remedy for tort liability, including constitutional torts, and to preserve statutory immunity for claims arising from operation or maintenance of jails/prisons.
- The Court framed the issue as whether Bosh should be extended to allow inmate medical-care constitutional torts despite the GTCA amendments; it concluded the Legislature’s amendments foreclose such judicial expansion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Art. II §§ 7 & 9 permit a common-law tort for denial of inmate medical care despite GTCA | Art. II §§ 7 & 9 create enforceable tort remedies (money damages) for inmates; Bosh and Washington suggest constitutional torts may exist | GTCA (as amended) defines constitutional violations as "torts," makes GTCA exclusive, and bars suits arising from operation/maintenance of jails; sovereign immunity forbids such tort suits | Held: No. The Legislature’s GTCA amendments make constitutional torts subject to GTCA and bar inmate medical-care torts against the State for prison/jail-related claims |
| Whether any recognized constitutional tort would be retroactive | Plaintiffs: if recognized, remedy should apply to pending claims | Defendants: statutory immunity and GTCA limits control; retroactivity irrelevant if remedy barred | Held: Moot — court declined to reach retroactivity because it denied existence of the remedy under current statutory scheme |
| Whether Bosh’s common-law constitutional-tort reasoning can be extended to inmate medical-care claims | Plaintiffs: Bosh shows Court can create common-law remedies for constitutional violations | Defendants: Legislature has power to define/limit sovereign immunity; post-Bosh amendments prevent judicially-created remedies that conflict with GTCA | Held: Bosh cannot be extended here; legislative amendment supersedes judicial expansion |
| Whether Article II itself creates a cause of action independent of the GTCA | Plaintiffs: constitutional text and prior decisions imply a damages remedy | Defendants: Constitutional provisions do not by themselves create money-damage causes; sovereign immunity requires express legislative waiver | Held: Court doubtful Article II alone creates a damages remedy; sovereign immunity and GTCA controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Bosh v. Cherokee Cnty. Gov’tal Bldg. Auth., 305 P.3d 994 (Okla. 2013) (recognized a judicially-created constitutional tort for excessive force under Art. II, § 30)
- Washington v. Barry, 55 P.3d 1036 (Okla. 2002) (assumed, for purposes of decision, possibility of an inmate constitutional tort under Art. II, § 9)
- Vanderpool v. State, 672 P.2d 1153 (Okla. 1983) (discussed Legislature’s authority over sovereign immunity and abrogation of judicially-created immunity)
- State ex rel. Dep’t of Highways v. McKnight, 496 P.2d 775 (Okla. 1972) (sovereign immunity exists absent clear legislative waiver)
- Perry v. City of Norman, 341 P.3d 689 (Okla. 2014) (discussed limits on creation of constitutional torts where statutory remedies exist)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) (U.S. Supreme Court recognized damages remedy for Eighth Amendment failure-to-treat claim)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (U.S. 2017) (reaffirmed that recognizing implied constitutional damages remedies is disfavored and often for the legislature)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognized implied damages remedy against federal officers; Supreme Court has since limited extensions)