STRANGE v. TROUTT, 2017 OK CIV APP 5

Plaintiff Robert Strange, an inmate, sued DOC employees Dr. Jeffrey Troutt, RN Amber Riley, and health services administrator Tami Grogan for negligence and constitutional violations after receiving Copaxone intended for another inmate instead of his prescribed insulin on Feb. 11, 2016.
Strange filed his petition on June 9, 2016. Defendants moved to dismiss under 12 O.S. § 2012(B)(6) on July 18, 2016 and asked the court to rule without a hearing under District Court Rule 4(h).
The trial court granted the motion and entered an order dismissing the case on the same day, labeling it a "STRIKE" under 57 O.S. § 566.2.
The dismissal order appears to be without prejudice and did not comply with § 2012(G) requirements regarding leave to amend or findings supporting dismissal with prejudice.
Strange appealed; the Court of Civil Appeals reviewed the dismissal de novo and focused on procedural due process defects in how the motion was handled.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court lawfully granted the motion to dismiss without allowing Strange time to respond under Rule 4	Strange argued the court improperly ruled before his response time expired, denying him due process	Defendants argued dismissal was proper under § 2012(B)(6) and asked the court to rule without a hearing	The court reversed: ruling without allowing the Rule 4(e) response period violated procedural due process; dismissal reversed and remanded for further proceedings allowing response time

Kirby v. Jean's Plumbing Heat & Air, 222 P.3d 21 (Okla. 2009) (standard for reviewing motions to dismiss and that dismissal should only be granted when plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support)
Woods v. Computer Sciences Corp., 247 P.3d 1201 (Okla. Civ. App. 2011) (holding a court may deem a motion confessed only after the opposing party's time to respond under local rule has expired)