Opinion
CIV-23-602-G
08-02-2024
ERIC LEE PROCTOR, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Amanda Maxfield Green, United States District Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se,has filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). United States District Judge Charles B. Goodwin referred this matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Doc. 3). As set forth fully below, the undersigned recommends that the Court DISMISS the Complaint and DENY AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 12).
A pro se litigant's pleadings are liberally construed “and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991); see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). But the court cannot serve as Petitioner's advocate, creating arguments on his behalf. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008).
Citations to the parties' filings and attached exhibits will refer to this Court's CM/ECF pagination.
I. Screening
Federal law mandates the screening of each complaint in a civil action filed by a prisoner seeking redress from a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or any portion of it 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. Id.
In reviewing the complaint, 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). The court must 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) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Bare legal conclusions in a complaint 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).
II. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff is a state inmate currently confined at the James Crabtree Correctional Center in Helena, Oklahoma. (Doc 1, at 2); see also OK DOC #229618, Oklahoma Department of Corrections OK Offender, https://okoffender.doc.ok.gov/ (last visited August 2, 2024). In September 1994, Plaintiff was convicted following a jury trial of three counts of Forcible Sodomy, one count of Assault with a Deadly Weapon, and one count of Rape in the First Degree. See Grady County District Court, Case No. CF-1994-78A.He was sentenced to 250 years of imprisonment on the rape charge and 20 years on each of the remaining charges, to be served consecutively. See OK DOC# 229618, Oklahoma Department of Corrections OK Offender. Upon direct appeal, the convictions on all counts of Forcible Sodomy and Rape in the First Degree were affirmed, and the conviction for Assault with a Deadly Weapon was reversed and remanded for new trial. See Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Case No. F-1994-1184. The count of Assault with a Deadly Weapon was then dismissed by the state district court on May 23, 1996. See Grady County District Court, Case No. CF-1994-78A, supra note 3. The state court has denied each of Plaintiff's previous collateral attacks on the remaining convictions. See id.
https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=grady&number=CF-1994-00078A&cmid=9510244 (Docket Sheet) (last visited August 2, 2024). The undersigned takes judicial notice of the docket sheets and related documents in Plaintiff's state criminal proceedings. See United States v. Pursley, 577 F.3d 1204, 1214 n.6 (10th Cir. 2009) (exercising discretion “to take judicial notice of publicly-filed records in [this] court and certain other courts concerning matters that bear directly upon the disposition of the case at hand”) (citation omitted).
https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=F-1994-1184&cmid=31460 (Docket Sheet) (last visited August 2, 2024).
On April 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed with Grady County District Court a “Notice of Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights & Universal Affidavit of Truth,” which contained nine civil rights claims regarding Plaintiff's conviction and sentence. See id. When the undersigned recommended dismissal of the instant Complaint pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine, (see Doc. 9), which requires federal courts to abstain from interfering with a state court's ability to conduct proceedings, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his Grady County action. See Grady County District Court, Case No. CF-1994-78A, supra note 3. Since the state action was no longer pending, this Court declined to dismiss the Complaint and re-referred this matter to the undersigned. (Doc. 13).
III. The Complaint
In the instant Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights, Plaintiff names as defendants Grady County Oklahoma Court; Grady County, Oklahoma;the State of Oklahoma; and the United States of America. (Doc 1, at 1-2). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id. at 3-4). Plaintiff claims that “[t]he Court Violated the Legal and Constitutional Rights of the Plaintiff and did not proceed with the Plaintiff's case Under Juvenile laws,” and “[t]he Court Committed Judicial Misconduct and Failed to give Access to an attorney.” (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiff has attached to the Complaint the aforementioned Notice of Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights & Universal Affidavit of Truth that he filed with the Grady County District Court. (Doc. 1, at Ex. 1). In this attachment are nine claims:
Plaintiff names “Grady County Oklahoma” as a Defendant in the case caption, (Doc. 1, at 1), but names “Grady County Oklahoma Court” as a Defendant in the Parties section of the Complaint, (id. at 2). Below, the undersigned addresses why neither party is a proper defendant in this action.
• Claim One: “The Court Violated the Legal and Constitutional Rights of the Plaintiff and did not Proceed with the Plaintiff's Case Under Juvenile Laws,” arguing that Plaintiff should have been tried as a juvenile since he was sixteen years old at the time of the alleged offenses and that his consecutive sentences are the functional equivalent of life without parole, an unconstitutional sentence under Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). (Id. at Ex. 1, at 7-13).
• Claim Two: “The Court Committed Judicial Misconduct and Failed to give Access to an Attorney,” arguing that Plaintiff's court-appointed attorney was “not familiar with the case.” (Id. at Ex. 1, at 13-14).
• Claim Three: “The Court Failed to Consider the Necessary Evidence of the Case,” arguing that a DNA report, rape kit, and test strip were not submitted in the state district court. (Id. at Ex. 1, at 14-15).
• Claim Four: “The Court abused the Due Process Rights of Plaintiff,” arguing that “Plaintiff did not get a fair and equal opportunity to defend the allegations.” (Id. at Ex. 1, at 15-16).
• Claim Five: “The Court Committed Intentional Tort to Plaintiff,” arguing that “due to the intentional act and judicial misconduct of the trial court, Plaintiff faced severe emotional distress and problems in mental health.” (Id. at Ex. 1, at 16-18).
• Claim Six: “The Court Violated the Double Jeopardy Clause,” arguing that “[t]he court charged with Forcible Sodomy 21-888 B3 and granted 20 years imprisonment three times.” (Id. at Ex. 1, at 18-19).
• Claim Seven: “The Court Violated Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” arguing that the state district court discriminated against Plaintiff and “did not provide the opportunity for the Plaintiff to defend his case.” (Id. at Ex. 1, at 19-20).
• Claim Eight: “The Investigation Officers, District Attorney, & Judge of the Plaintiff's case Committed Gross Negligence.” (Id. at Ex. 1, at 20-21).
• Claim Nine: “The State's argument to the district court, adopted in its entirety by the district court, that Plaintiff's possible eligibility for parole at the age of 68 constitutes a meaningful opportunity for release,” arguing that the Oklahoma parole procedure does not allow him a “meaningful” or “realistic” opportunity for release, as he is not eligible for parole until he is sixty-eight years old. (Id. at Ex. 1, at 2127).
Plaintiff's requested relief is for this Court to “thoroughly investigate this matter, considering both the civil and criminal dimensions of the case” and “take appropriate actions to correct the unjust sentencing and secure his release.” (Id. at 5).
IV. The Court Should Dismiss the Complaint Because Plaintiff Has Named Improper Defendants.
A. The State of Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Complaint alleges claims against the State of Oklahoma. (Doc.1, at 1, 2). Section 1983 prohibits a “person” acting under color of state law from violating another's civil rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The State of Oklahoma “is not a person within the meaning of § 1983.” Will v. Mich. Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989). “Section 1983 provides a federal forum to remedy many deprivations of civil liberties, but it does not provide a federal forum for litigants who seek a remedy against a State for alleged deprivations of civil liberties.” Id. at 66. Thus, Plaintiff's claims against the State of Oklahoma should be dismissed.
B. The Grady County District Court
In the Parties section of the Complaint, Plaintiff names as a Defendant “Grady County Oklahoma Court” (“the Grady County District Court”). (Doc. 1, at 2). The claims against the Grady County District Court should be dismissed for three reasons:
(1) the Oklahoma courts are not suable entities, (2) Oklahoma courts constitute “arms of the state” and are shielded by Eleventh Amendment immunity, and/or (3) Oklahoma district courts are sub-entities of their respective counties, and Plaintiff has not shown that the execution of the policies or customs of any county deprived him of any rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States.Agrawal v. Cts. of Oklahoma, No. CIV-18-396-D, 2018 WL 3354881, at *2 (W.D. Okla. July 9, 2018) (collecting cases), aff'd, 764 Fed.Appx. 809 (10th Cir. 2019); see also Davis v. Oklahoma, No. CIV-11-1362-D, 2012 WL 1836274, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 11, 2012) (“Any claims Plaintiff brings against the Cleveland County District Court . . . should be dismissed because [this entity is] not suable . . . for purposes of § 1983.”). Thus, Plaintiff's claims against the Grady County District Court should be dismissed.
C. Grady County, Oklahoma
In the case caption of the Complaint, Plaintiff names as a Defendant Grady County, Oklahoma (“Grady County”). (Doc. 1, at 1). Grady County is also an improper defendant in a § 1983 action. “Under Oklahoma law, [] a county may be sued only in the name of the “Board of County Commissioners of the County of ___.” Hill v. Truelove, No. CIV-07-404-M, 2010 WL 56144, at *7 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 6, 2010) (citing Okla. Stat. tit. 19, § 4). Since Plaintiff brought his claims against Grady County instead of the Board of County Commissioners of Grady County, the claims against Grady County should be dismissed. See Bain v. Oklahoma Cnty., No. CIV-15-71-W, 2016 WL 2930447, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 8, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 2851572 (W.D. Okla. May 13, 2016).
D. The United States of America
Lastly, Plaintiff has brought claims against the United States of America, (Doc. 1, at 1), which is also an improper defendant. “[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity prohibits suits against the United States except in those instances in which it has specifically consented to be sued. The United States consents to be sued only when Congress unequivocally expresses in statutory text its intention to waive the United States' sovereign immunity.” Fent v. Oklahoma Water Res. Bd., 235 F.3d 553, 556 (10th Cir. 2000) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980) (“It is elementary that [t]he United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued ....A waiver of sovereign immunity cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)). The United States has not waived sovereign immunity for civil rights claims. See Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 72 (2001) (recognizing that a “prisoner may not bring a Bivens claim against the officer's employer, the United States, or the BOP”). Thus, Plaintiff's claims against the United States of America should be dismissed.
V. The Pending Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Should Be Denied
Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Pardon and Parole Board, And Grady County” on November 25, 2023. (Doc. 12, at 1, 10). Because the undersigned recommends dismissal of the Complaint in its entirety, the pending motion is moot and should therefore be denied.
VI. Recommendation and Notice of Right to Object.
In accordance with the forgoing analysis, the undersigned recommends that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) and DENY AS MOOT Plaintiff's pending Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 12).
The undersigned advises Plaintiff of his right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of Court on or before August 23, 2024, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). The undersigned further advises Plaintiff that failure to file a timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives his right to appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained herein. Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge and terminates the referral unless and until the matter is re-referred.