THACKER v. WALTON
499 P.3d 1255
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2020Background
- Kirt Thacker, former Rogers County Commissioner, was criminally charged for allegedly using county equipment to modify a pond; he entered an Alford plea to a misdemeanor on November 13, 2017; related felony counts were dismissed under the plea agreement.
- Thacker sued Scott Walton (Rogers County Sheriff), John Singer, and Charles Rogers alleging state-law claims (malicious prosecution, false light, defamation, abuse of process, civil conspiracy, state-constitutional violations, etc.) and federal § 1983 claims for malicious prosecution and retaliation.
- Walton publicly discussed the incident on a November 2017 radio podcast; defendants moved to dismiss under the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act (OCPA). The trial court heard argument but failed to issue a ruling within the statutory period, so the motion was deemed denied by operation of law and was appealed.
- On appeal the Court of Civil Appeals applied de novo review, considered whether Thacker met the OCPA’s requirement to show by “clear and specific evidence” a prima facie case, and evaluated individual state claims against that standard.
- The court reversed the trial court’s denial in part: it held several state claims (state malicious prosecution, abuse of process, false light, defamation, related conspiracy and state constitutional claims) should have been dismissed under the OCPA; but it held the OCPA does not apply to Thacker’s federal § 1983 claims, which remain pending.
- The court remanded to the trial court to award reasonable appellate attorney fees to Walton and Singer for prevailing on dismissal of the state-law claims and to equally divide appellate costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| OCPA burden / standard | Thacker: OCPA shouldn’t defeat his claims; he has clear and specific evidence of each element. | Walton/Singer: OCPA applies to podcast statements; burden shifts to Thacker to show prima facie case by clear and specific evidence. | Court applied de novo review and OCPA burden-shifting; treated “clear and specific evidence” as prima facie standard. |
| State malicious prosecution (termination element) | Thacker: prosecution was wrongful and harmed him; therefore termination element satisfied. | Walton/Singer: Thacker’s Alford plea is not a favorable termination. | Dismissed — Alford plea treated as a guilty plea for preclusive/termination purposes; element not met. |
| False light / defamation based on podcast | Thacker: Walton’s podcast placed him in a false light and published defamatory statements. | Walton: statements were opinion and were supported by facts (plea); no recklessness or falsity after the plea. | Dismissed — statements not shown false or made with knowledge/reckless disregard given plea; no actionable false light/defamation. |
| Applicability of OCPA to federal § 1983 claims | Thacker: OCPA should not be used to dismiss federal claims. | Walton/Singer: OCPA applies to their speech and should be available to dismiss federal claims as well. | OCPA does not apply to § 1983 claims in state court where its special dismissal/substantive scheme would conflict with federal law; federal claims remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Southwest Orthopaedic Specialists, P.L.L.C. v. Allison, 439 P.3d 430 (Okla. Civ. App. 2018) (OCPA burden-shifting and de novo review analysis)
- Krimbill v. Talarico, 417 P.3d 1240 (Okla. Civ. App. 2018) ("clear and specific evidence" equals prima facie showing)
- Martin v. Phillips, 422 P.3d 143 (Okla. 2018) (Alford plea treated as a guilty plea for preclusive effect)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (limits on civil claims where criminal conviction not favorably terminated)
- Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (U.S. 1988) (state procedural rules preempted where they conflict with § 1983 objectives)
- Greenberg v. Wolfberg, 890 P.2d 895 (Okla. 1994) (accrual rule for abuse of process claims)
- Colbert v. World Publ'g Co., 747 P.2d 286 (Okla. 1987) (false light elements and standard of fault)
- Steidley v. Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc., 383 P.3d 780 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016) (OCPA fee provision interpreted as mandating fees on dismissal)