Howard Ex Rel. Payne v. Grady County Criminal Justice Authority
394 P.3d 299
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2016Background
- James Payne, a detainee at Grady County Detention Center, was assaulted by inmate Joseph Branom on July 23, 2014, struck his head, was hospitalized, and died.
- Payne’s next friend, Beverly Howard, sued Grady County Criminal Justice Authority (GCCJA) alleging jail employees failed to properly administer psychotropic medication to Branom; Branom traded meds and became unmedicated or “quasi‑medicated,” increasing his propensity for violence and causing a dangerous condition that led to Payne’s death.
- GCCJA moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing no private cause of action exists for violations of Article II, § 7 (due process) of the Oklahoma Constitution; the trial court granted dismissal and Howard appealed.
- The court considered (1) whether a private cause of action exists under Art. II, § 7 and (2) whether Howard’s petition alleges facts sufficient to state such a claim, assuming arguendo that a cause of action exists.
- The court assumed without deciding that Art. II, § 7 might support a private remedy but held Howard failed to plead the necessary elements of an inmate safety/failure‑to‑protect claim (i.e., that jail staff were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Art. II, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution create a private cause of action for due process violations against a governmental entity when OGTCA remedies are unavailable? | Howard: Bosh’s reasoning (preserving constitutional remedies despite OGTCA) should extend to due process claims, permitting a private action. | GCCJA: The Oklahoma Supreme Court has not recognized a private cause of action for due process under Art. II, § 7; Bosh should be limited to excessive‑force/Art. II, § 30 claims. | The court declined to decide definitively whether Art. II, § 7 creates a private cause of action but proceeded on the assumption it might. |
| If a private cause of action exists, did Howard plead sufficient facts to state an inmate safety / failure‑to‑protect claim (deliberate indifference to a substantial risk)? | Howard: Alleged failure to administer psychotropic meds led to Branom’s dangerous condition and Payne’s death, satisfying a constitutional claim. | GCCJA: Petition lacks allegations that staff knew Branom was unmedicated, trading medication, or posed a substantial risk to Payne; thus no deliberate indifference. | Held for GCCJA: Petition fails to allege GCCJA knew of and disregarded a substantial risk to Payne; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Barry, 55 P.3d 1036 (Okla. 2002) (state constitution can supply a private remedy for excessive force despite OGTCA limitations)
- Bosh v. Cherokee County Governmental Building Authority, 305 P.3d 994 (Okla. 2013) (recognized private cause of action for excessive force under Okla. Const. art. II, § 30 despite OGTCA)
- Perry v. City of Norman, 341 P.3d 689 (Okla. 2014) (limits Bosh: municipality Bosh claims barred when OGTCA remedy is available)
- GJA v. Oklahoma Department of Human Services, 347 P.3d 310 (Okla. Civ. App. 2015) (Court of Civil Appeals interpreted Bosh broadly to allow due process claims under Art. II, § 7 but applied gatekeeper review and found the petition insufficient)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (Eighth Amendment/prison official duty: objective substantial‑risk standard plus subjective deliberate indifference for failure‑to‑protect claims)