Winningham v. City of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
4:24-cv-00062
N.D. Okla.May 2, 2025Background
- Plaintiff John Winningham, Jr., proceeding pro se, sued several municipalities, individuals, and a wrecker service, alleging constitutional violations stemming from his July 2018 arrest.
- Claims were brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, multiple federal criminal statutes, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
- Winningham sought return of a vehicle and ten dogs, along with $10 million in damages.
- Many defendants were not properly served; motions to dismiss were filed by those who were served.
- Previous similar lawsuits by Winningham were dismissed in both the Northern and Eastern Districts of Oklahoma for reasons including failure to state a claim, lack of service, and nonpayment of filing fees.
- The court addressed the sufficiency and timeliness of Winningham's claims and the possibility of placing filing restrictions due to repeated, unsuccessful filings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Civil claims based on criminal statutes | Winningham argued private right of action under statutes | No private civil right under federal criminal law | Dismissed with prejudice |
| Statute of limitations (§1983 claims) | Claims are timely or saved by tolling | Claims are time-barred by Oklahoma limitations | Dismissed with prejudice |
| Sufficiency of RICO claim | Cited RICO due to pattern of misconduct | No facts stating RICO elements, time-barred | Dismissed with prejudice |
| Failure to serve remaining defendants | Sought extension and filed amended complaints | Non-service requires dismissal | Dismissed without prejudice |
| Frivolous and repetitive filings | N/A | Request filing restrictions due to frivolousness | Warning issued; no restrictions imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (sets pleading standard for plausibility on motions to dismiss)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (establishes plausibility standard for complaints)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (pro se plaintiff complaints are construed liberally)
- In re Winslow, 17 F.3d 314 (10th Cir. 1994) (courts can restrict frivolous filings without violating access to courts)
- Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900 (10th Cir. 1986) (court may impose restrictions to prevent abuse without denying meaningful access)
- Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2012) (courts must disregard conclusory pleadings in Rule 12 motions)
- Sterlin v. Biomune Sys., 154 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 1998) (complaints must be construed in plaintiff's favor at motion to dismiss stage)