Crockett v. Drummond et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
PAULA CROCKETT, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-697-G
)
GENTER DRUMMOND, Oklahoma )
Attorney General, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Plaintiff Paula Crockett, appearing pro se, initiated this civil action on June 23,
2025, raising claims against three defendants. See Compl. (Doc. No. 1); see also Pl.’s
Suppl. (Doc. No. 4). Now before the Court is Defendant Walgreens Store #4673’s
(“Walgreens”) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 12), seeking dismissal pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has filed a Response (Doc. No.
13), and Defendant has replied (Doc. No. 14).
I. Plaintiff’s Allegations
As relevant here, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that on February 24, 2024, Plaintiff
visited Walgreens Store #4673 in Warr Acres, Oklahoma. See Compl. at 6. Plaintiff alleges
that while at the store she attempted to purchase a product (laundry detergent) that was
advertised to be on sale for $1.99. See id.; id. Ex. 1 (Doc. No. 1-1) at 3. When Plaintiff
asked two employees about the product, they informed her that the sale would not start
until the next day, which “was a deliberate lie,” and refused to honor the sale price. Compl.
Ex. 10 (Doc. No. 1-10) at 1; see Compl. at 4.
Case 5:25-cv-00697-G Document 23 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 6

2
The store’s employees also were rude and made Plaintiff wait for an extended period
of time to ring up her purchase. See Compl. at 4, 6. Plaintiff alleges that she was “the only
Black person in the store at that time” and that the employees “exhibited normal, cordial
behavior toward the other customers in the store that day, who happened to be White.”
Compl. Ex. 3 (Doc. No. 1-3) at 1.
Based on the “discriminatory treatment” Plaintiff experienced, Plaintiff brings civil
rights claims pursuant to Title II of the Civil Rights of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a, and 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Compl. at 3, 7. Plaintiff alleges that the incident at Walgreens and her
related efforts for relief have severely impacted her health and caused her emotional
distress. See id. at 4, 7. The Complaint requests an award of compensatory damages, as
well as punitive damages. See id. at 4-5.
II. Relevant Standard
Walgreens seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In
analyzing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court “accept[s] as true all well-
pleaded factual allegations in the complaint and view[s] them in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff.” Burnett v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 706 F.3d 1231, 1235 (10th
Cir. 2013). “[T]o withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
enough allegations of fact, taken as true, ‘to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188, 1190 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
Case 5:25-cv-00697-G Document 23 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 6

3
A complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted 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).”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (footnote and citation omitted). Bare legal conclusions in a
complaint are not entitled to the assumption of truth; “they must be supported by factual
allegations” to state a claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
III. Discussion
A. Plaintiff’s Title II Claim
Plaintiff’s cited statute, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a, “protects an individual’s ‘full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations
of any place of public accommodation’ free of discrimination based on race, color, religion,
or national origin.” Cox v. McCarthy, No. CIV-23-502-D, 2023 WL 8190710, at *2 (W.D.
Okla. Nov. 27, 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(a)).
Walgreens argues that Plaintiff fails to state a Title II claim upon which relief can
be granted because she fails to plausibly allege that Walgreens is a “place of public
accommodation” subject to the requirements of the statute. See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss at
5-7.
A “place of public accommodation,” for purposes of § 2000a, specifically
includes restaurants, cafeterias, soda fountains, facilities principally engaged
in “selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited
to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or
any gasoline station,” so long as the operation affects commerce or engages
in discrimination or segregation in a manner that is supported by State action.
[42 U.S.C. § 2000a(b).] Retail establishments are not encompassed by the
definition of “place of public accommodation” unless they incorporate a
facility that sells food for on-site consumption. [Id. § 2000a(b)(2).]
Case 5:25-cv-00697-G Document 23 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 6

4
Tart v. Five Below, LLC, No. 22-CV-176, 2023 WL 6628721, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Oct. 11,
2023). “[F]ederal courts have long held that general retail establishments are not ‘places
of public accommodation’” for purposes of a Title II claim. Id.; see, e.g., Priddy v. Shopko
Corp., 918 F. Supp. 358, 359 (D. Utah 1995); see also Jackson v. Walgreens Co., No. 16-
0398, 2016 WL 4212258, at *2 (D. Minn. Aug. 10, 2016); Bell v. CVS Pharmacy, No. 25-
128, 2025 WL 1411084, at *3 (D.D.C. May 15, 2025).
Plaintiff does not address this argument in her Response or point to any allegations
that, if true, “would permit a fact-finder to conclude that [Walgreens] is a place of public
accommodation,” rather than a retail store or “retail . . . pharmacy . . . not covered under
Title II.” Tart, 2023 WL 6628721, at *2; Bell, 2025 WL 1411084, at *3. It follows that,
even liberally construed, the Complaint fails to plausibly state a claim under Title II against
Walgreens.
B. Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim
Section 1983 “provides a remedy against state actors who violate a federal right,
pursuant to state authority.” Big Cats of Serenity Springs, Inc. v. Rhodes, 843 F.3d 853,
869 (10th Cir. 2016); accord Gallagher v. Neil Young Freedom Concert, 49 F.3d 1442,
1447 (10th Cir. 1995) (“[T]he only proper defendants in a [§] 1983 claim are those who
represent the state in some capacity.” (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Plaintiff therefore must show that Walgreens was acting “under color of state law.” West
v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). “The traditional definition of acting under color of state
law requires that the defendant in a § 1983 action exercised power possessed by virtue of
Case 5:25-cv-00697-G Document 23 Filed 02/12/26 Page 4 of 6

5
state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of
state law.” Id. at 49 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Walgreens argues that dismissal of Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim is required
because Walgreens is not subject to liability under that statute. See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss
at 8-9.1 The Court agrees. Reasonably construed, the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint
establish that Plaintiff visited and sought to purchase items at Walgreens, a privately owned
entity. Taken as true, these factual allegations do not plausibly reflect that Walgreens or
its employees acted under color of state law pursuant to any of the tests recognized by the
Tenth Circuit. See Compl. at 4, 6-7; Gallagher, 49 F.3d at 1447. And Plaintiff’s argument
that Walgreens’ employees were “acting and working under the color of law in the state of
Oklahoma” likewise does not plausibly show that Walgreens “represent[s] [the State] in
some capacity,” such that Walgreens’ conduct was “fairly attributable to the State.” Pl.’s
Resp. at 1; NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179, 191 (1988); Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.,
457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982); see Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50 (1999)
(“[T]he under-color-of-state-law element of § 1983 excludes from its reach merely private
conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be
dismissed as to Walgreens.
1 Although Walgreens invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the showing that
the defendant was acting under color of law is “a jurisdictional requisite for a § 1983
action.” Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 315 (1981). The Court therefore considers
whether dismissal is required pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).
Case 5:25-cv-00697-G Document 23 Filed 02/12/26 Page 5 of 6

6
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Walgreens Store #4673’s Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims against this Defendant are DISMISSED
without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of February, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-00697-G Document 23 Filed 02/12/26 Page 6 of 6