Hayes v. Owen
| Decision Date | 30 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | 22-CV-0230-CVE-SH,22-CV-0231-CVE-SH,22-CV-0274-CVE-SH,22-CV-0275-CVE-SH |
| Parties | ANITA JEAN HAYES, SALINDA EVE HAYES, Plaintiffs, v. SCOTT OWEN, individual capacity and official capacity, JON COPELAND, official capacity, MICHAEL KITCHENS, individual capacity and official capacity, B. UNDERWOOD, individual capacity and official capacity, KRISTEN DAVIS, official capacity, J. CUTLER, individual capacity and official capacity, J. INMAN, individual capacity and official capacity, B. BERENS, individual capacity and official capacity, R. BLACKARD, individual capacity and official capacity, W. JACOBS, individual capacity and official capacity, B. WANO, individual capacity and official capacity, A. WITT, individual capacity and official capacity, A. GALANIS, individual capacity and official capacity, WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, JEFF PRENTICE, official capacity, SUMMER SONG DAVIS, individual and official capacity, PATRICK JOSEPH BALLARD, individual capacity and official capacity, Defendants/Consolidated Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma |
Plaintiffs Anita Jean Hayes and Salinda Eve Hayes (collectively “plaintiffs”), appearing pro se, bring this action, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to vindicate the alleged violation of their civil rights arising from their arrests and subsequent detention at the Washington County Jail. Before the Court are four motions: a motion to dismiss filed by defendant Board of County Commissioners of the County of Washington (“the Board”) on August 15, 2022 (Dkt # 14); a motion to dismiss filed by defendants Washington County Sheriff Scott Owen and the Washington County Sheriff's Office (“WCSO”) on August 15, 2022 (Dkt. # 15); a motion to dismiss filed by defendants Jon Copeland, Kristin Davis, Jared Cutler, Jordan Inman, Brooks Berens, Reed Blackard, Williams Jacobs, Braden Wano, Aaron Witt, and Andrew Galanis (collectively, “jail defendants”)[1] on August 15, 2022 (Dkt. # 16) and a motion to dismiss filed by defendant Jeff Prentice on August 22, 2022 (Dkt. # 22). Plaintiffs did not respond to any of these dismissal motions.
On May 25, 2022, plaintiffs filed two separate complaints for violation of civil rights in federal court. Compare Hayes et al. v. Owen et al., No. 22-CV-0230-CVE-SH (N.D. Okla.), with Hayes et al. v. Owen et al., No. 22-CV-0231-CVE-SH (N.D. Okla.). The complaint filed in Case No. 22-CV-0230-CVE-SH (“jail complaint”) alleges violations of plaintiffs' Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Hayes et al. v. Owen et al., No. 22-CV-0230-CVE-SH, Dkt. # 1.[2] The named plaintiffs are Anita Jean Hayes and Salinda Eve Hayes, and plaintiffs name as defendants Washington County Sheriff Scott Owen, Undersheriff Jon Copeland, Michael Kitchens, B. Underwood, Kristen Davis, J. Cutler, J. Inman, B. Berens, R. Blackard, W. Jacobs, B. Wano, A. Witt, A. Galanis, the WCSO, and the Board. The complaint filed in Case No. 22-CV-0231-CVE-SH (“arrest complaint”) alleges violations of plaintiffs' First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under § 1983. Hayes et al. v. Owen et al., No. 22-CV-0231-CVE-SH, Dkt. # 1. The named plaintiffs are Anita Jean Hayes and Salinda Eve Hayes, and plaintiffs name as defendants Washington County Sheriff Scott Owen, Undersheriff Jon Copeland, Lieutenant Jeff Prentice, Deputy Summer Song Davis, Deputy Patrick Joseph Ballard, the WCSO, and the Board.
On May 31, 2022, plaintiffs filed two separate petitions in the District Court of Washington County, Oklahoma. Compare Hayes et al. v. Owen et al., No. CV-2022-0047, with Hayes et al. v. Owen et al., No. CV-2022-0048. The named parties and facts underlying the petition filed in Case No. CV-2022-0047 (“jail petition”) are identical to the May 25, 2022, jail complaint, and the named parties and facts underlying the petition filed in Case No. CV-2022-0048 (“arrest petition”) are identical to the May 25, 2022, arrest complaint.[3] On June 24, 2022, defendants in both state court cases properly removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The jail petition was subsequently assigned federal Case No. 22-CV-0274-CVE-SH, and the arrest petition was assigned federal Case No. 22-CV-0275-CVE-SH. Defendants in all four proceedings are represented by the same counsel. On June 27, 2022, the named defendants in the jail complaint filed a motion in Case No. 22-CV-0230-CVE-SH, asking the Court to consolidate all four cases. Hayes et al. v. Owen et al., No. 22-CV-0230-CVE-SH, Dkt. # 6, at 5. By order filed August 1, 2022 (Dkt. # 11), the Court granted the motion and consolidated the cases. Citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), several defendants now move to dismiss the arrest complaint and the jail complaint.
On January 17, 2021, defendants Deputy Patrick Ballard and Deputy Summer Davis, both of whom are employed by the WCSO, responded to a 9-1-1 call about an apparent landlord-tenant dispute at a rural property in Dewey, Oklahoma. Hayes et al. v. Owen et al., No. 22-CV-0231-CVE-SH, Dkt. # 1, at 7. Deputy Ballard “removed the front window and allowed the previous occupant to gain entry,” despite plaintiffs' belief that the previous occupant had legally abandoned the residence and any personal property therein. Id. Plaintiffs went “to the property to secure the window that Deputy Ballard had removed.” Id. During plaintiffs' interaction with Deputy Ballard and Deputy Davis, there was a young child, M.D.H., in the backseat of plaintiffs' vehicle, and Salinda was wearing a medical boot for a broken foot. Id. at 8. Salinda stood near the plaintiffs' vehicle, recording the interaction with her cell phone. Id. Deputy Ballard became “irritated with” plaintiffs when they asked him to socially distance so plaintiffs could put on their face masks. Hayes et al. v. Owen et al., No. 22-CV-0231-CVE-SH, Dkt. # 1, at 7. Deputy Ballard asked plaintiffs for identification, and plaintiffs refused to provide it because they believed they are not legally required to identify themselves unless they have committed a crime. Id. at 8. Deputy Ballard argued with Salinda about whether a road leading to the property was a private road or county road. Id. Deputy Davis told plaintiffs to “shut up” and gave “two thumbs up when asked if she just said shut up,” then told plaintiffs they needed to leave. Id.
Shortly thereafter, the encounter with the deputies became physical. Deputy Ballard arrested Salinda “for obstruction for failing to identify by yanking her left arm and throwing her into Deputy Davis.” Hayes et al. v. Owen et al., No. 22-CV-0231-CVE-SH, Dkt. # 1, at 8. Deputy Davis said, “you f***ing b***h, you hit me,” “punch[ed] Salinda in the gut,” then punched Salinda in the face seven times. Id. Deputy Ballard tackled Salinda, forcing her on top of Deputy Davis and “sandwich[ing]” Salinda between Davis, who was on the ground face up, and Ballard, who was pushing down on Salinda's back and “forcing [Salinda's] head down into Deputy Davis's chest.” Id. Deputy Davis falsely stated, “do something,” “she's got my gun.” Id. at 9. Deputy Davis drew her gun, placed the barrel against Salinda's head, and then pointed her gun at Anita and M.D.H. Id. Davis's body camera was activated when she drew her gun. Id. M.D.H. screamed and ducked down into the floorboard of the backseat. Id. Deputy Ballard gave Salinda conflicting commands to get up and to sit down, then tasered her. Id. Deputy Ballard became sexually aroused and ejaculated in his pants while he was pressing against Salinda's back. Id. Deputy Davis kicked Salinda in her left side and told Anita, “You're next.” Id. Deputy Ballard used his body weight to force his left knee into the center of Salinda's back and forced her face into the ground. Id. Salinda told the deputies she could not breathe and asked them to handcuff her quickly. Id. Deputy Davis “wrench[ed] Salinda's thumbs back” while Deputy Ballard handcuffed Salinda. Hayes et al. v. Owen et al., No. 22-CV-0231-CVE-SH, Dkt. # 1, at 9. Deputy Davis “stomped on Salinda's cell phone twice, ending the livestream.” Id. Deputy Davis then turned her attention to Anita.
Deputy Davis attempted to grab Anita's cell phone and threw a punch, then grabbed Anita's cell phone and threw it on the ground where “a witness” picked it up. Hayes et al. v. Owen et al., No. 22-CV-0231-CVE-SH, Dkt. # 1, at 9. Deputy Davis grabbed Anita's jacket, Anita immediately went “down to the ground,” and Davis jumped on Anita's back and straddled Anita's hips. Id. Deputy Davis tasered Anita for nine seconds, and Deputy Ballard pulled Anita's arms behind her. Id. Deputy Davis told Deputy Ballard that she tasered Anita “because she was ‘fed up with her.” Id. Deputy Davis wrenched Anita's thumbs back while handcuffing her. Id. at 10. Anita shouted that she was having a panic attack. Id. Both deputies yanked Anita's handcuffed arms above her head and told her to get up. Id. Deputy Davis suggested that they drag Anita to Davis's patrol car. Id. Deputy Ballard and a Dewey police officer grabbed Anita by her elbow and ankles as Deputy Davis laced her fingers into Anita's fingers and Davis twisted Anita's wrists “the entire way to the” patrol car. Id.
After both plaintiffs were placed in separate patrol cars, Deputy Davis “deliberately left the heat on” in her patrol car, with all four windows rolled up, said she was offering Anita air conditioning, and told Deputy Ballard to “let [plaintiffs] sit.” Hayes et al. v. Owen et al., No. 22-CV-0231-CVE-SH, Dkt. # 1, at 10. Plaintiffs sat in the patrol cars for over an hour while Deputy Davis...
To continue reading
Request your trial