Bryson v. OKL. CTY. EX REL. OKL. CTY. DETENTION CET.
2011 OK CIV APP 98
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2011Background
- Bryson was arrested April 1, 2007 and taken to the Oklahoma County jail for processing.
- During processing, Bryson was verbally abusive and refused a TB exam.
- A detention officer, Miller, handcuffed Bryson to a bench, then moved him to a holding cell.
- Miller removed Bryson’s handcuffs, Bryson refused to stand, Miller shoved Bryson into a wall, tackled him, and delivered two knee strikes to his back; Miller was terminated after an internal investigation.
- Bryson filed claims for assault, battery, negligence, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, state constitutional rights, failure to train/supervise, and negligence; all defendants except the County were dismissed.
- The County moved for summary judgment arguing Miller acted outside the scope of employment, GTCA immunity, no County policy/custom caused the violation, and Eighth Amendment did not apply; Bryson conceded most facts; the district court granted summary judgment on several claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the County is liable for Miller’s assault/battery under respondeat superior | Bryson argues Miller acted within the scope of employment and the County is liable | County contends Miller acted outside scope or is not liable under GTCA; no policy/custom liability | Partial: summary judgment proper for assault/battery if Miller outside scope or no policy; here scope disputed so not proper as to those claims (reversed in part as to 1983/Art.2 §30) |
| Whether the County can be liable under §1983 for Fourth Amendment excessive force | Bryson asserts County policy/custom caused excessive force | County disputes policy/custom linkage and immunity defenses | In part: §1983 claim survives to the extent based on policy/custom; remanded for further proceedings on causation and staffing evidence |
| Whether Bryson’s state constitutional claim under Okla. Const. art. 2, § 30 bars or survives summary judgment | Bryson maintainsFourth Amendment-equivalent protections apply to pretrial detainees | County argues GTCA immunity and no state constitutional violation | GTCA not a defense to art. 2, § 30 claim; summary judgment denied on this claim and remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether the County’s Eighth Amendment/Okla. Const. art. 2, § 9 claims were properly resolved | Pretrial detainee rights under Fourth/State analogs apply before conviction | Eighth Amendment and §9 do not apply to pretrial detainees | Affirmed: claims under Eighth Amendment and art. 2, § 9 were properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Barry, 55 P.3d 1036 (Okla. 2002) (excessive force claims by arrestees/pretrial detainees; state constitutional analysis)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) ( Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard for excessive force)
- Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986) (final policy-maker liability under §1983)
- Brown v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Bryan County, Oklahoma, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) (moving force requirement for official policy under §1983)
- Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512 (10th Cir. 1988) (county sheriff authority; no duty to hire/train established; limits of respondeat superior)
- HCA Health Servs. of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Whetsel, 173 P.3d 1203 (Okla. 2007) (constitutional duties of county for inmate care; GTCA limitations)
- Washington v. Barry, 55 P.3d 1036 (Okla. 2002) (reiterated duty to staffing and jail administration; §1983 analysis)