Harmon v. Cradduck
2012 OK 80
| Okla. | 2012Background
- Harmon, an inmate at JLCC, had property including a gold ring confiscated as contraband in 2004.
- Cradduck stored Harmon's confiscated items, including the ring, in an unsecured desk and it was later lost or stolen.
- Harmon pursued inmate grievances beginning December 2004; initial responses were inconsistent, and his appeals were repeatedly rejected.
- DOC conducted an internal investigation; Cradduck received disciplinary actions for mishandling inmate property.
- Harmon filed suit in 2005; district court stayed proceedings for investigation; later summary judgments were entered for defendants.
- On remand, Harmon amended his petition asserting conversion and § 1983 claims; DOC was not named as a defendant in Harmon II; the case proceeded through COCA and this Court, which ultimately vacated and remanded to resolve the surviving claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies under GTCA | Harmon exhausted requirements under OP-090124. | Defendants asserted non-compliance with exhaustion. | Exhaustion satisfied; settled-law-of-the-case prevents reconsideration. |
| Conversion claim against Cradduck | Cradduck diverted the ring for personal use; ownership disputed. | No intentional misappropriation; ring stolen by unknown person. | Material facts disputed; reversal of summary judgment proper; remand for merits. |
| § 1983 claims viability | Deprivation of property without due process; alleged grievance deception. | Grievance process not constitutional; state remedies adequate. | No constitutional violation; § 1983 claims dismissed; state remedies adequate. |
| GTCA notice and scope of claims | Equitable tolling of GTCA notice possible; broader tort claims may be timely. | Notice required; no timely GTCA notice rendered other tort claims barred. | No GTCA notice; claims barred except conversion; remand limited accordingly. |
| Prison policy defense to conversion | DOC policies may not shield officer from liability if not followed. | Policy adherence could bar conversion defense. | Policy compliance is a factual question for the trier of fact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1981) (due process and post-deprivation remedies adequacy)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1984) (unlawful taking requires adequate post-deprivation remedies)
- Wilhelm v. Gray, 1988 OK 142, 766 P.2d 1359 (OK 1988) (state remedies for property loss; § 1983 claims barred where adequate state remedy exists)
- Gaines v. Stenseng, 292 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2002) (prison grievance violations do not create § 1983 claims)
- Brown v. Okla. State Bank & Trust Co. of Vinita, 1993 OK 117, 860 P.2d 230 (OK 1993) (ownership disputes create fact questions for summary judgment)