Hyatt v. Board of Regents of Oklahoma Colleges Ex Rel. Southwestern Oklahoma State University
659 F. App'x 522
10th Cir.2016Background
- Hyatt, a juvenile committed to Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs (OJA), was placed in a SWOSU-run rehabilitation program where a female security officer allegedly coerced him into a sexual relationship, supplied drugs/alcohol, drove recklessly with him, and photographed him nude.
- Hyatt sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging supervisory liability against OJA Executive Director Robert Christian (in his individual capacity) and state-law negligent supervision claims against OJA and SWOSU.
- The district court dismissed Hyatt’s § 1983 claim for failure to plead that Christian caused or was deliberately indifferent to the constitutional violation, and dismissed the negligent supervision claim for failure to allege notice of the officer’s propensities.
- The court also entered a dismissal (labeled without prejudice) of Hyatt’s claims against the security officer; on appeal the panel treated that dismissal as effectively with prejudice because Hyatt had already refilled once under Oklahoma’s savings statute after the limitations period had run.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo, accepted Hyatt’s factual allegations as true for purposes of pleading, and affirmed the district court’s order dismissing the claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court has appellate jurisdiction | Dismissal of security officer was effectively with prejudice due to prior refiling under Oklahoma’s savings statute, so remaining judgment is final and appealable | District court’s order labeled security officer dismissal without prejudice, so case might not be final | Court held it had jurisdiction because savings statute permitted only one refiling, making the dismissal effectively final and appealable (Jackson/ Amazon principles) |
| Whether supervisory liability under § 1983 was sufficiently pleaded against Christian | Hyatt alleged Christian had ultimate responsibility for OJA policies, failed to ensure adequate protections, and inadequately supervised the officer allowing months-long misconduct | Christian argued plaintiff pleaded only conclusions and lacked an affirmative link showing his knowledge or deliberate indifference | Held: Dismissed — allegations were conclusory and failed to show active participation, knowledge, or deliberate indifference required for supervisory § 1983 liability (Serna/Dodds standard) |
| Whether facts support inference Christian knew or acquiesced in abuse (Tafoya analogy) | Hyatt argued extended duration of misconduct permits inference of supervisory knowledge or deliberate indifference | Defendants argued complaint contains no factual allegations that Christian knew of or ignored indicators of abuse | Held: Dismissed — Tafoya inapposite because complaint lacks facts showing Christian’s awareness or indifference to dangerous conditions |
| Whether negligent supervision claim against OJA and SWOSU was pleaded | Hyatt argued employers failed to supervise/security officer despite repeated misconduct | Defendants argued plaintiff failed to allege prior knowledge of officer’s propensity to create the specific danger, a required element under Oklahoma law | Held: Dismissed — complaint alleges no facts showing OJA or SWOSU had notice of the officer’s propensity (N.H. v. Presbyterian Church rule) |
Key Cases Cited
- Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2012) (pleading plausibility standard under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Jackson v. Volvo Trucks N. Am., Inc., 462 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2006) (finality and appellate jurisdiction when claims dismissed after limitations issues)
- Amazon, Inc. v. Dirt Camp, Inc., 273 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir. 2001) (savings-statute refiling and finality considerations)
- Kripp v. Luton, 466 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2006) (applying state limitations to § 1983 actions)
- Serna v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 455 F.3d 1146 (10th Cir. 2006) (supervisory liability requires active participation or deliberate indifference)
- Dodds v. Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2010) (elements for supervisory liability under § 1983)
- Jenkins v. Wood, 81 F.3d 988 (10th Cir. 1996) (supervisory liability requires deliberate, intentional act beyond mere control)
- Tafoya v. Salazar, 516 F.3d 912 (10th Cir. 2008) (awareness of dangerous conditions can support deliberate-indifference inference)
- N.H. v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 998 P.2d 592 (Okla. 1999) (negligent supervision requires employer’s prior knowledge of servant’s propensities)
- Hull v. Rich, 854 P.2d 903 (Okla. 1993) (interpretation of Oklahoma savings statute)