Littleton v. Canadian County et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JON-MICHAEL LITTLETON, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-1290-J
)
CANADIAN COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
This matter was referred for initial proceedings to United States Magistrate Judge Shon T.
Erwin consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B),(C) and currently pending is his Report and
Recommendation [Doc. No. 12]. Plaintiff has filed an Objection [Doc. Nos. 13 and 15].1 For the
reasons discussed below, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.
I. 	Background
Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee, filed a First Amended Complaint2 [Doc. No. 7] alleging nine
constitutional violations against seven defendants. In Count One, Plaintiff asserts he was subjected
to unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Count
Two, Plaintiff alleges he was placed in solitary confinement in an unheated cell after contacting
his attorney regarding confiscated legal documents. In Count Three, Plaintiff asserts Defendants
Burton and Wagner placed him in solitary without any disciplinary infraction or administrative
1 Doc. Nos. 13 and 15 are identical except as to Plaintiff’s signature. On Doc. No. 13, Plaintiff’s
signature is type written, and on Doc. No. 15, Plaintiff’s signature is handwritten. On January 8,
2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File with Signature Forthcoming (Motion for Leave)
[Doc. No. 14]. Because Plaintiff’s signed objection was filed prior to the deadline to object to the
Report and Recommendation, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave is MOOT.
2 Plaintiff’s initial complaint was dismissed because it was filed by Glenna Littleton, acting as
“power of attorney” on behalf of Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is substantially
the same as the initial complaint.
Case 5:25-cv-01290-J Document 16 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 7

2
justification in violation of his Due Process Rights. 	In Counts Four and Five, Plaintiff alleges
violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights based upon the alleged denial of his
prescribed inhaler when he suffered an asthma attack. In Count Six, Plaintiff asserts a violation
of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First and Sixth Amendments based upon his sealed legal outgoing
mail being opened. 	In Count Seven, Plaintiff alleges he was discriminated against based on
religious expression in violation of the First Amendment. 	In Count Eight, Plaintiff alleges
retaliatory and malicious treatment under color of law. In Count Nine, Plaintiff asserts municipal
liability against Canadian County.
On screening, Judge Erwin recommended this Court should: (1) conclude Plaintiff has
stated a due process claim against Defendants Burton and Wagner based on the allegations in
Count Three, has stated a claim against Defendant Wagner for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s
serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment based on the allegations in Count
Four, and has stated a First Amendment claim against Defendant Powers based on the allegations
in Count Six; and (2) dismiss all remaining counts and defendants without prejudice.
II. 	Standard of Review
Plaintiff does not object to the recommendations as to Counts Three, Four, and Six. The
Court, accordingly, engages in a non-de novo review on Counts Three, Four, and Six “only to
confirm that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Gauthier v. Hunt, No. CIV-20-1153-
J, 2021 WL 1886297, at *2 (W.D. Okla. May 11, 2021) (cleaned up; citation omitted) (applying a
de novo and non-de novo review to an objection which only specifically addressed portions of the
underlying report and recommendation). 	Plaintiff objects to the recommendations as to Counts
One, Two, Five, Seven, Eight, and Nine, asserting that these counts and Defendants Burton, Carter,
Case 5:25-cv-01290-J Document 16 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 7

3
West, and Canadian County should not be dismissed. The Court applies de novo review on Counts
One, Two, Five, Seven, Eight, and Nine to which Plaintiff specifically objected.
III. 	Non-De Novo Review
Judge Erwin recommended that the Court conclude Plaintiff has stated a due process claim
against Defendants Burton and Wagner based on the allegations in Count Three; Plaintiff has
stated a claim against Defendant Wagner for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical
needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment based on the allegations in Count Four; and
Plaintiff has stated a First Amendment claim against Defendant Powers based on the allegations
in Count Six. Plaintiff concurs with Judge Erwin’s recommendations. Finding no clear error on
the face of the record, the Court ADOPTS Judge Erwin’s findings and recommendations with
respect to Counts Three, Four, and Six.
IV. 	De Novo Review
Plaintiff generally objects to the Report and Recommendation and asserts that the First
Amended Complaint plausibly alleges constitutional violations involving direct participation,
supervisory direction, ratification, and policy-based causation sufficient to proceed against all
named defendants at the pleading stage.
A. 	Count One
In Count One, Plaintiff alleges “Defendants” subjected him to conditions that violate the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by denying him adequate exercise, sunlight, and human
contact and that these conditions constitute punishment of a pre-trial detainee without due process
of law. See First Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 21-22. Judge Erwin recommended that this count be
dismissed without prejudice, finding that Plaintiff’s failure to link any of the Defendants
specifically with any of the alleged violations in Count One renders that count legally deficient.
Case 5:25-cv-01290-J Document 16 Filed 01/28/26 Page 3 of 7

4
In 	his 	objection, 	Plaintiff 	provides 	additional 	information 	clarifying 	certain 	defendants’
responsibility for specific claims, including Count One. 	Plaintiff’s additional information,
however, is not contained in his First Amended Complaint and, therefore, cannot be considered
when determining the sufficiency of the facts alleged in Count One. Accordingly, upon de novo
review, the Court ADOPTS Judge Erwin’s recommendation to dismiss Count One. Because the
noted deficiency can be corrected, the Court finds that Plaintiff should be granted leave to file an
amended complaint.
B. 	Count Two
In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges he was placed in solitary confinement and an unheated cell
after contacting his attorney regarding confiscated legal documents in violation of the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments. See First Amended Complaint at ¶ 23. Judge Erwin recommended that
this count be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to allege any specific factual allegations to satisfy
the “but for” element of his retaliation claim. Upon de novo review, the Court concurs with Judge
Erwin’s finding that Plaintiff failed to allege any specific factual allegations against either
Defendant Burton or Defendant Wagner to satisfy the “but for” element of Plaintiff’s retaliation
claim. Accordingly, upon de novo review, the Court ADOPTS Judge Erwin’s recommendation to
dismiss Count Two. Because the noted deficiency can be corrected, the Court finds that Plaintiff
should be granted leave to file an amended complaint.
C. 	Count Five
In 	Count 	Five, 	Plaintiff 	alleges 	that 	“Defendants” 	repeatedly 	withheld 	Plaintiff’s
psychiatric medications for extended periods without medical justification, causing mental and
emotional harm in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. 	See First Amended
Complaint at ¶ 26. Judge Erwin recommended that this count be dismissed because the allegations
Case 5:25-cv-01290-J Document 16 Filed 01/28/26 Page 4 of 7

5
are insufficient because they fail to identify the specific person or persons allegedly responsible
for the wrongdoing. In his objection, Plaintiff provides additional information clarifying certain
defendants’ responsibility for specific claims, including Count Five. 	Plaintiff’s additional
information, however, is not contained in his First Amended Complaint and, therefore, cannot be
considered when determining the sufficiency of the facts alleged in Count Five. 	Accordingly,
upon de novo review, the Court ADOPTS Judge Erwin’s recommendation to dismiss Count Five.
Because the noted deficiency can be corrected, the Court finds that Plaintiff should be granted
leave to file an amended complaint.
D. 	Count Seven
In Count Seven, Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants” discriminated against him based on
religious expression by denying him religious music while allowing another inmate to receive
identical material in violation of the First Amendment. 	See First Amended Complaint at ¶ 28.
Judge Erwin recommended that this count be dismissed because the allegations are insufficient
because they fail to identify the specific person or persons allegedly responsible for the
wrongdoing. 	In his objection, Plaintiff provides additional information clarifying certain
defendants’ responsibility for specific claims, including Count Seven. 	Plaintiff’s additional
information, however, is not contained in his First Amended Complaint and, therefore, cannot be
considered when determining the sufficiency of the facts alleged in Count Seven. Accordingly,
upon de novo review, the Court ADOPTS Judge Erwin’s recommendation to dismiss Count Seven.
Because the noted deficiency can be corrected, the Court finds that Plaintiff should be granted
leave to file an amended complaint.
Case 5:25-cv-01290-J Document 16 Filed 01/28/26 Page 5 of 7

6
E. 	Count Eight
In Count Eight, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ actions were intentional and malicious,
constituting abuse under color of law in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Judge
Erwin recommended that this count be dismissed as duplicative of the allegations set forth in
Counts One, Two, Four, Five, and Seven. In his objections, Plaintiff does not specifically address
Judge Erwin’s recommendation as to Count Eight. 	Upon de novo review, the Court ADOPTS
Judge Erwin’s recommendation to dismiss Count Eight.
F. 	Count Nine
In Count Nine, Plaintiff alleges municipal liability against Defendant Canadian County.
Judge Erwin recommended that this count be dismissed because Plaintiff’s allegations are
conclusory and insufficient to state a claim for municipal liability. 	In his objection, Plaintiff
provides additional information in support of his municipal liability claim. Plaintiff’s additional
information, however, is not contained in his First Amended Complaint and, therefore, cannot be
considered when determining the sufficiency of the facts alleged in Count Nine. 	Accordingly,
upon de novo review, the Court ADOPTS Judge Erwin’s recommendation to dismiss Count Nine.
Because the noted deficiency can be corrected, the Court finds that Plaintiff should be granted
leave to file an amended complaint.
V. 	Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, on both non-de novo and de novo review, the Court
ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation3 [Doc. No. 12], DISMISSES Counts One, Two, Five,
3 The Report and Recommendation included a recommendation regarding Plaintiff’s motion for
protective order [Doc. No. 10], should the Court decide to address the motion. The Court declines
to address the motion for protective order.
Case 5:25-cv-01290-J Document 16 Filed 01/28/26 Page 6 of 7

7
Seven, Eight, and Nine, and GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28 th day of January, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-01290-J Document 16 Filed 01/28/26 Page 7 of 7