STRANGE v. TROUTT
2017 OK CIV APP 5
Okla. Civ. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Robert Strange, an inmate at James Crabtree Correctional Center, sued DOC employees Dr. Jeffrey Troutt, RN Amber Riley, and HSA Tami Grogan for negligence and constitutional violations after receiving Copaxone instead of prescribed insulin on Feb. 11, 2016.
- Strange filed his petition on June 9, 2016 alleging the wrong medication injection intended for another inmate.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under 12 O.S.2011 § 2012(B)(6) on July 18, 2016 and asked the court to rule without a hearing under Rule 4(h) of the Rules for District Courts.
- The trial court granted the motion to dismiss the same day and designated the dismissal as a "STRIKE" under 57 O.S. § 566.2; the dismissal was entered without leave to amend or statutory findings.
- Strange appealed; the Court of Civil Appeals reviewed the dismissal de novo and focused on whether the trial court denied Strange procedural due process by ruling before his response period expired.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint should be dismissed on the merits under § 2012(B)(6) | Strange alleges facts sufficient to state negligence and constitutional claims for administration of the wrong drug | Defendants argued the petition fails to state a claim as a matter of law | Not reached on merits; court reversed because of procedural error |
| Whether the court properly granted the motion without allowing the plaintiff time to respond under Rule 4 | Strange argued he was denied the 15-day (plus 3 mail) response period and thus due process | Defendants relied on Rule 4(h) to have the motion decided without a hearing immediately | Court held trial court erred: Rule 4 requires giving opposing party 15 days to respond; granting motion before that time violated due process; reversal and remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirby v. Jean's Plumbing Heat & Air, 222 P.3d 21 (Okla. 2009) (standard for dismissal de novo review and that a motion to dismiss tests legal sufficiency)
- Woods v. Computer Sciences Corp., 247 P.3d 1201 (Okla. Civ. App. 2011) (Rule 4 response period must expire before trial court may deem motion confessed)