BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS v. STATE ex. rel. OFFICE OF JUVENILE AFFAIRS
2021 OK CIV APP 40
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2021Background
- Texas County operated a six‑bed juvenile detention facility under a contract with the Office of Juvenile Affairs (OJA); the contract included option years through July 1, 2020.
- On May 12, 2020, OJA voted to amend the State Plan for Detention Services and eliminated funding for the Texas County facility.
- The Texas County Board of County Commissioners (Board) sought reconsideration (failed) and filed two consolidated suits in Texas County: an Administrative Appeal (75 O.S. § 318) and a Declaratory Judgment action (75 O.S. § 306), claiming breach of contract, APA violations, and Open Meeting Act violations.
- OJA moved to dismiss, arguing the OJA action was neither an "individual proceeding" (so § 318 review was unavailable) nor rule‑making under the APA (so § 306 relief was improper), and argued venue for some claims lay in Oklahoma County.
- After hearings (including testimony about the OJA vote), the trial court denied stay and injunctions, then granted OJA’s renewed motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue; the Board appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process (trial procedure) | Board: Court deprived it of notice/opportunity when OJA presented testimony and renewed dismissal at stay hearing | OJA: Gave advance notice it would present evidence; Board had prior opportunities to be heard | Court: No due process violation — OJA announced intent to present evidence and Board had notice and prior hearings |
| Whether OJA action was an "individual proceeding" for § 318 review | Board: OJA’s amendment produced a final agency order subject to judicial review under § 318 | OJA: The vote was an operational/policy decision, not an adjudicative individual proceeding | Court: Not an individual proceeding; § 318 review unavailable; administrative appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether OJA’s amendment constituted APA rule‑making (75 O.S. § 306) | Board: Amendment was a rule affecting rights and thus subject to APA rule‑making requirements | OJA: Allocation of detention beds is an internal operational decision exempt from rule‑making | Court: Amendment was an operational/internal management decision, not rule‑making; § 306 claim fails |
| Venue for declaratory and other claims against OJA | Board: Texas County was proper venue for declaratory and related claims | OJA: Claims against state officers must be brought in county where the officer’s official residence is (Oklahoma County) | Court: Venue improper in Texas County for claims other than a § 306 rule‑making claim (which also failed); dismissed without prejudice for improper venue |
Key Cases Cited
- Bird v. Willis, 927 P.2d 547 (Okla. 1996) (§ 318 provides review only for final orders from individual proceedings)
- Double LL Contractors, Inc. v. State, 918 P.2d 34 (Okla. 1996) (judicial review limited to aggrieved parties from individual proceedings)
- City of Sand Springs v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 608 P.2d 1139 (Okla. 1980) (agency facility/operational decisions are internal management and not APA rule‑making)
- Lockett v. Evans, 330 P.3d 488 (Okla. 2014) (legislature did not intend internal operating procedures to be subject to APA rule‑making)
- Grand River Dam Auth. v. State, 645 P.2d 1011 (Okla. 1982) (venue for actions against public officers is in county of officer’s official residence)
- Stewart v. Rood, 796 P.2d 321 (Okla. 1990) (discusses when APA permits adjudicative, trial‑type proceedings)
- Dani v. Miller, 374 P.3d 779 (Okla. 2016) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Beck v. Jarrett, 363 P.2d 215 (Okla. 1961) (courts should balance rapid disposition and litigants’ opportunity to be heard)