Henry Joseph Jaquez v. Cherokee County

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma addresses multiple motions to dismiss in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by pretrial detainee Henry Joseph Jaquez. The court dismisses claims against the district attorney defendants, Rachel Dallis, and Cherokee County, while allowing an excessive-force claim against defendants Thomas Scroggins and Jeremy Huff to proceed and dismissing other claims against the Cherokee County Jail defendants.

Holdings

1. A § 1983 complaint must identify the specific actions taken by each defendant and make clear who allegedly did what to whom; collective, conclusory allegations are insufficient.
2. The complaint failed to state § 1983 claims against John Bennett and Haley Robison in their individual capacities, and the official-capacity claims were dismissed based on immunity conceded by plaintiff.
3. Rachel Dallis could not be held liable under § 1983 for performing traditional functions of appointed defense counsel because the complaint did not plausibly allege that she acted under color of state law.
4. Cherokee County was improperly named as a defendant and was entitled to dismissal because Oklahoma law requires suits against a county to be brought in the name of the county's board of county commissioners.
5. The complaint plausibly stated a Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claim against Scroggins and Huff based on allegations that they shoved Jaquez into his cell and deployed O.C. chemical agents in response to his request for a copy of a PREA complaint.
6. The complaint plausibly stated a failure-to-protect claim against Scroggins and Huff based on allegations that they encouraged an inmate to assault Jaquez, arranged for him to be released from his cell, and watched as the assault occurred.
7. The complaint failed to state a First Amendment free-exercise claim because Jaquez did not plausibly allege that the restrictions substantially burdened sincere religious beliefs or lacked a reasonable relationship to legitimate penological interests.
8. The complaint failed to state a First Amendment free-speech claim because it did not plausibly allege that the asserted speech restrictions were unrelated to legitimate penological interests.
9. The complaint failed to state a First Amendment retaliation claim because its allegations were conclusory and did not identify specific conduct by particular defendants showing that the challenged actions were substantially motivated by protected activity.
10. The complaint plausibly stated a procedural-due-process claim against Johnny Dallis based on the allegation that he transferred Jaquez to Delaware County on January 19, 2023, as punishment without process; the claim was dismissed against the other defendants for lack of individualized allegations.
11. The court denied the Rule 12(b)(5) motion and request to quash service because the United States Marshal's proofs of service showed personal service on Scroggins, Huff, and Johnny Dallis, and defendants offered no contrary evidence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint plausibly stated claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the District Attorney Defendants in their individual and official capacities.
2. Whether Rachel Dallis, an appointed defense attorney, acted under color of state law for purposes of § 1983.
3. Whether Cherokee County was improperly named under Oklahoma law.
4. Whether the complaint stated claims against the jail defendants for excessive force, failure to protect, free exercise, free speech, retaliation, conditions of confinement, or procedural due process.
5. Whether service on Scroggins, Huff, and Johnny Dallis was insufficient or should be quashed.

Disposition

other