Arnett v. Gabriel et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
GLEN DELANE ARNETT, JR., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-24-185-SLP
)
MAJOR PHILLIP GABRIEL et al., )
)
Defendants. )
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Glen Delance Arnett Jr., appearing
pro se and
in forma pauperis, filed an
Amended Complaint (AC) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging various civil rights violations.
(ECF No. 8). Chief United States District Judge Scott L. Palk referred this matter to the
undersigned magistrate judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B)-(C). Following an initial review of the AC, the following claims and
Defendants remain: (1) Claim One as set forth in the AC for retaliation in violation of the
First Amendment against Defendant Gabriel; (2) Claim Three as set forth in the AC
alleging a violation of Equal Protection against Defendants Hamilton and Hagen; (3) Claim
Nine as set forth in the AC alleging a violation of his right to free exercise of religion
against Defendants Peek, Hagan, and Amason, and (4) Claim Eleven as set forth in the
AC alleging a violation of his right to free exercise of religion against Defendants Peek,
Hagan, and Amason. (ECF No. 18:6). These claims remain against the Defendants in their
individual capacities for monetary damages and their official capacities for injunctive
relief.
See ECF Nos. 13 & 18.
Case 5:24-cv-00185-SLP Document 42 Filed 04/30/26 Page 1 of 6

A second review of the AC has been conducted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)
and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Based on that review, the Court should dismiss, without
prejudice, the official capacity claims for injunctive relief against Defendants Gabriel,
Hamilton, Hagen, Peek, and Amason.
I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
The Court must review each complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress against
a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court likewise
must review each case brought by a prisoner with respect to prison conditions and each
case in which a plaintiff proceeds
in forma pauperis. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). The Court is required to dismiss the complaint or any portion of the
complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b), 1915(e)(2)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must accept Plaintiff’s allegations as true and construe them, and any
reasonable inferences to be drawn from them, in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.
See
Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007). Since Plaintiff is proceeding
pro se,
his complaint must be construed liberally.
See id. at 1218. The Court “review[s] the
complaint for plausibility; that is, to determine whether the complaint includes enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Young v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254,
1256 (10th Cir. 2009) (quotations and citation omitted).
Case 5:24-cv-00185-SLP Document 42 Filed 04/30/26 Page 2 of 6

A complaint fails to state such a claim when it lacks factual allegations sufficient
“to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the
allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).”
Bell Atlantic v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (footnote and citation omitted). Bare legal conclusions in a
complaint, however, are not assumed to be true; legal conclusions “must be supported
by factual allegations” to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
“[A] pro se plaintiff requires no special legal training to recount the facts
surrounding his alleged injury, and he must provide such facts if the court is to determine
whether he makes out a claim on which relief can be granted.”
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991);
see also Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74
(10th Cir. 1997) (noting that although courts construe
pro se pleadings liberally, courts
“will not supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff’s complaint”).
Whether a complaint contains sufficient facts to avoid dismissal is context-specific and is
determined through a court’s application of “judicial experience and common sense.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679;
see also Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1184-85 (10th Cir. 2010)
(discussing
Iqbal).
III. DISMISSAL OF THE OFFICIAL CAPACITY CLAIMS
As stated, official capacity claims remain against Defendants Gabriel, Hamilton,
Hagen, Peek, and Amason.
See supra. The Court should dismiss these claims, without
prejudice.
Case 5:24-cv-00185-SLP Document 42 Filed 04/30/26 Page 3 of 6

A suit under § 1983 against an employee in their official capacity is “another way
of pleading an action against the county or municipality they represent.”
Porro v. Barnes,
624 F.3d 1322, 1328 (10th Cir. 2010). A defendant contracted to perform a county
function (such as Defendants Gabriel, Hamilton, Hagen, Peek, and Amason) can be liable
for the same types of
Monell violations.
See Dubbs v. Head Start, Inc., 336 F.3d 1194,
1216 (10th Cir. 2003) (“Although the Supreme Court’s interpretation of § 1983 in
Monell
applied to municipal governments and not to private entities acting under color of state
law, caselaw from this and other circuits has extended the
Monell doctrine to private §
1983 defendants.”);
Smedley v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 175 F. App’x 943, 945-46 (10th Cir.
2005).
To state a § 1983 claim against county employees in their official capacities, a
plaintiff must identify “ ‘a government's policy or custom’ that caused [him] injury.”
See
Schneider v. City of Grand Junction Police Dep't, 717 F.3d 760, 769 (10th Cir. 2013)
(quoting
Monell, 436 U.S. at 691-92). “A challenged practice may be deemed an official
policy or custom for § 1983 municipal-liability purposes if it is a formally promulgated
policy, a well-settled custom or practice, a final decision by a municipal policymaker, or
deliberately indifferent training or supervision.”
Id. at 770. As well, a plaintiff must
establish “a direct causal link between the policy or custom and the injury alleged,”
Graves
v. Thomas, 450 F.3d 1215, 1218 (10th Cir. 2006), and must also show “that the policy
was enacted or maintained with deliberate indifference to an almost inevitable
constitutional injury,”
Schneider, 717 F.3d at 769.
Case 5:24-cv-00185-SLP Document 42 Filed 04/30/26 Page 4 of 6

As stated, the remaining official capacity claims against these Defendants are set
forth in the AC at Claims One, Three, Nine, and Eleven.
See supra. An examination of the
allegations pertaining to these claims reveal that Plaintiff has failed to allege that these
Defendants acted pursuant to an official policy or custom in committing the alleged
constitutional violations.
See ECF No. 8:6, 7, 10, 16, 18. As a result, the Court should
dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Gabriel, Hamilton, Hagen, Peek, and Amason
in their official capacities, without prejudice.
See Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S.
469, 479 (1986) (“The ‘official policy’ requirement was intended to distinguish acts of the
municipality from acts of
employees of the municipality, and thereby make clear that
municipal liability is limited to action for which the municipality is actually responsible.”).
If the Court adopts this recommendation, what remains are claims against these
Defendants as set forth in Claims One, Three, Nine, and Eleven of the AC in their
individual capacities only, limited to the recovery of monetary damages.
IV. RECOMMENDATION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
Based on the foregoing, the Court should dismiss, without prejudice, the remaining
official capacity claims for injunctive relief as set forth in Claims One, Three, Nine, and
Eleven.
Plaintiff is hereby advised of his right to object to this Report and
Recommendation.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636. Any objection must be filed with the Clerk of the
District Court by May 18, 2026.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
Failure to make timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to
Case 5:24-cv-00185-SLP Document 42 Filed 04/30/26 Page 5 of 6

appellate review of both factual and legal questions contained herein.
Casanova v.
Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010).
V. STATUS OF THE REFERRAL
This Report and Recommendation terminates the referral to the undersigned
magistrate judge in the captioned matter.
ENTERED on April 30, 2026.
Case 5:24-cv-00185-SLP Document 42 Filed 04/30/26 Page 6 of 6