Gilbert-Mitchell v. Gerlach
5:17-cv-00732
W.D. Okla.Dec 11, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Wallace Gilbert-Mitchell, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued Warden Jim Gerlach and Sergeant Owings (a GCLEC guard) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged sexual assault by Owings and various conditions-of-confinement deprivations at Grady County Law Enforcement Center (GCLEC).
- Claims were brought against defendants in both individual and official capacities seeking injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief.
- Magistrate Judge Erwin reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B) and issued a Report recommending partial dismissals and allowing certain Eighth Amendment individual-capacity claims to proceed against Owings and Gerlach (post-assault failure-to-protect theory).
- The magistrate recommended dismissal with prejudice of declaratory relief claims, dismissal without prejudice of official-capacity monetary claims, and dismissal without prejudice of several individual-capacity claims (including punishment-without-due-process, pre-assault failure-to-protect, and conditions-of-confinement claims) with leave to amend.
- The district court adopted the Report, dismissed or dismissed without prejudice as recommended, granted leave to amend claims dismissed without prejudice, and set a deadline for any amended complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of declaratory relief | Seeks declaration his rights were violated (requests retrospective relief) | Declaratory relief should be dismissed because it would not alter defendants' future conduct | Dismissed with prejudice — retrospective declarations insufficient (Jordan v. Sosa rationale) |
| Official-capacity claims / identity of GCLEC | Alleges GCLEC is a private company and sues defendants as its employees to pursue punitive damages | Defendants/Government point out GCLEC is a county facility; official-capacity claims require municipal-policy allegations and Eleventh Amendment constraints apply | Official-capacity monetary claims dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead municipal policy/custom; GCLEC treated as county facility, not private contractor |
| Eighth Amendment — individual-capacity sexual assault claim against Owings | Alleges Owings sexually assaulted him while in custody | Defendants presumably deny or dispute sufficiency | Claim against Owings for monetary damages (individual capacity) survives as pleaded |
| Failure-to-protect / conditions / procedural due process claims (individual capacity against Gerlach) | Alleges Gerlach failed to protect him before and after assault and alleges unconstitutional conditions; also asserts "punishment without due process" theory | Defendants argue pleading deficiencies; no municipal policy allegation; many claims are conclusory or rely on facts outside the complaint | Pre-assault failure-to-protect, punishment-without-due-process, and conditions claims dismissed without prejudice; however court found an Eighth Amendment post-assault failure-to-protect claim against Gerlach sufficiently pleaded to proceed; leave to amend allowed for dismissed claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Jordan v. Sosa, 654 F.3d 1012 (10th Cir. 2011) (declaratory relief limited where plaintiff seeks only retrospective determination of past rights violations)
- Campbell v. City of Spencer, 777 F.3d 1073 (10th Cir. 2014) (municipal-liability requires policy or custom as moving force behind deprivation)
- Jones v. Barry, 33 Fed. Appx. 967 (10th Cir. 2002) (official-capacity concept does not apply the same way to employees of private correctional operators)