Altstatt v. Board Of County Commissioners for Oklahoma County et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BILLY JOE ALTSTATT, as brother and 	)
Guardian of JOHNNY ALTSTATT, an 	)
incapacitated person, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-22-811-D
)
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 	)
FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY; et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS
OF DEFENDANTS WILLIAMS AND WAGNER
Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Greg Williams and Kevin
Wagner [Doc. No. 60] under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(6). The movants are
individuals who were employees of the Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority
(“OCCJA”) in 2021 when the underlying events of this case occurred. This Motion raises
identical issues to a separate motion filed on behalf of the trustees of OCCJA [Doc. No. 59]:
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against them under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; his state-law
claims are barred by the Governmental Tort Claims Act (“GTCA”), Okla. Stat. tit. 51,
§§ 151-72; and the individual defendants have qualified immunity from suit under § 1983.
Plaintiff has filed a timely Response [Doc. No. 68], and the time for filing a reply brief has
expired. Thus, the Motion is ripe for decision.1
1 	Plaintiff’s attempt to incorporate arguments from other briefs is ineffectual and is
disregarded. See Pl.’s Resp. Br. at 1 n.1.
Case 5:22-cv-00811-D Document 95 Filed 09/26/23 Page 1 of 5

2
By separate orders, the Court has addressed the same or similar issues raised by
motions filed by OCCJA and the individual trustees. The Court finds no need to recite the
same background, standards of decision, and factual allegations stated in its prior orders,
or to restate its rulings. The Court instead adopts the Order Regarding Trustees’ Motion to
Dismiss [Doc. No. 94] and addresses only the facts and arguments that differ.
Briefly stated, Plaintiff Billy Joe Altstatt brings this action on behalf of his ward,
Johnny 	Altstatt 	(“Johnny”), 	for 	alleged 	violations 	of 	Johnny’s 	federal 	and 	state
constitutional rights. 	Plaintiff asserts claims under § 1983 and Bosh v. Cherokee County
Building Authority, 305 P.3d 994 (Okla. 2013), for personal injuries that Johnny suffered
on March 15, 2021, during his confinement as a pretrial detainee in the Oklahoma County
Detention Center (“OCDC”). Accepting the allegations of the Amended Complaint [Doc.
No. 35], Defendant Wagner “was the lead supervisor on duty on March 15, 2021,” and “the
ranking officer in charge” at OCDC on that date. 	See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 21, 31. Defendant
Williams was the administrator of OCDC and “responsible for the day-to-day management
of the facility.” 	Id. ¶ 22. Plaintiff is suing Defendants Williams and Wagner in their
individual capacities for their personal involvement in causing the alleged violations of
Johnny’s constitutional rights caused by deficiencies in the operation of OCDC, namely,
underfunding, understaffing, and inadequate supervision of inmates.
For the reasons fully stated in the Order Regarding Trustees’ Motion to Dismiss, the
Court finds that Plaintiff’s state-law claims against Defendants Williams and Wagner must
be dismissed without prejudice because they are immune from liability under the GCTA.
See Order re. Trustees’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 94] at 8.
Case 5:22-cv-00811-D Document 95 Filed 09/26/23 Page 2 of 5

3
For reasons previously stated, the Court further finds that the Amended Complaint
fails to state a plausible § 1983 claim against Defendant Williams. Aside from conclusory
allegations regarding a collective group of individual defendants (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 90, 99),
Plaintiff’s only mention of Defendant Williams is to state his position and the fact that he
hired Ryan Correctional Services in February 2021 to “provide insight into how to improve
conditions” at OCDC. 	Id. ¶ 114.2 	Like the trustees, Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant
Williams individually liable under § 1983 using a theory of supervisory liability. See Pl.’s
Resp. Br. at 9-10. For similar reasons, the Amended Complaint is insufficient to state a
plausible claim against Defendant Williams. See Order re. Trustees’ Mot. Dismiss at 9-11.
Plaintiff alleges insufficient facts to show that Defendant Williams had policymaking
authority over the alleged areas of deficiency or that he was deliberately indifferent to an
obvious risk of serious injury from inmate-on-inmate violence.
Similarly, the Court finds that the Amended Complaint fails to state a plausible
§ 1983 claim against Defendant Wagner. Plaintiff states that Defendant Wagner was aware
of a staff shortage at OCDC on March 15, 2021, and had previously complained to his
superiors about staffing shortages. 	See Am. Compl. ¶ 32. Also, Defendant Wagner was
aware of the dangers of understaffing and was aware that Johnny’s cellmate “had a history
of violence and sexual assault against other inmates.” 	Id ¶ 43. But Plaintiff’s theory of
supervisory liability of Defendant Wagner fails because the Amended Complaint does not
state any facts from which to reasonably infer that Defendant Wagner had policymaking
2 Plaintiff does not state when Defendant Williams became OCDC’s administrator.
Case 5:22-cv-00811-D Document 95 Filed 09/26/23 Page 3 of 5

4
authority to affect the alleged unconstitutional conditions of which Plaintiff complains.
The opposite is true; Plaintiff alleges facts showing that Defendant Wagner advocated for
improved staffing but his complaints were ineffective. Plaintiff also does not allege that
Defendant Wagner was deliberately indifferent to a risk of harm from inmate violence.
Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient factual allegations
to state a plausible § 1983 claim against Defendant Wagner in his individual capacity.
Finally, Plaintiff makes an identical response to the qualified immunity defense
raised by the instant Motion that he made in response to the trustees’ motion. For the same
reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to overcome this defense. See Order re.
Trustees’ Mot. Dismiss at 11-12. Therefore, Defendants Williams and Wagner are entitled
to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against them in their individual
capacities.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Greg
Williams and Kevin Wagner [Doc. No. 60] is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s action against these
defendants is DISMISSED without prejudice.3
3 To the extent a deficiency in Plaintiff’s pleading could be cured by further amendment,
a scheduling order entered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) will set a deadline for motions to amend.
Case 5:22-cv-00811-D Document 95 Filed 09/26/23 Page 4 of 5

5
IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of September, 2023.
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:22-cv-00811-D Document 95 Filed 09/26/23 Page 5 of 5