Richard Mcmahon V City Of Broken Arrow Oklahoma A Municipal Corporation

Key Facts

Issues

• Whether malicious prosecution (Count VI) and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count VII) claims against the City of Broken Arrow are barred by immunity under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act (OGTCA). The court denied leave, citing OGTCA immunity for claims requiring proof of employee bad faith or malice.
• Whether the plaintiff can re-add a defendant (Michael Ferguson) after the 90-day service period under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) has expired without seeking an extension. The court denied leave to re-add Ferguson due to the expired service period and lack of justification for extending it.
• Whether the plaintiff adequately pleaded municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services for the second incident (May 2024 warrantless home entry and excessive force). The court granted leave for this claim, finding sufficient allegations of the city’s failure to train/supervise officers and ratification of prior unconstitutional conduct.
• Whether a claim for negligent training and supervision (Count VIII) against the City of Broken Arrow falls under the OGTCA’s discretionary function exemption. The court denied leave, concluding such claims involve policy-level decisions exempt from OGTCA liability.
• Whether the Broken Arrow Police Department (BAPD) is a proper party to be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court dismissed BAPD with prejudice, finding it lacks the capacity to be sued as a legal entity under federal law.

Holdings

• The Court denies leave to assert negligent training and supervision (Count VIII) against the City, finding the claim barred by the OGTCA's 'discretionary function' exemption, as training and supervision decisions are policy/planning functions immune from liability.
• The Court denies leave to assert intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count VII) against the City, citing identical OGTCA immunity rationale as the malicious prosecution claim—proof of malice inherently excludes good faith, making the claim unsupportable under state law.
• The Court denies leave to assert malicious prosecution (Count VI) against the City, finding the claim barred by Oklahoma's Governmental Tort Claims Act (OGTCA) immunity because it requires proof of employee malice, which negates 'good faith' scope-of-employment requirements.
• The Court grants leave to assert municipal liability against the City of Broken Arrow for the second incident (May 2024 warrantless entry and excessive force) based on the City's failure to discipline or train officers after the first incident (July 2023), which the Court found plausibly connected as a 'moving force' causing the constitutional violation.
• The Court denies leave to assert claims against the Broken Arrow Police Department (BAPD) as it lacks the capacity to be sued, as previously determined in the November 7, 2025, Opinion and Order.
• The Court denies leave to re-add Michael Ferguson as a defendant because the time to serve him has expired and no authority extends the service period through amendment.
• The Court grants leave to include 'Unknown Broken Arrow Police Officers' as defendants, permitting discovery to identify their names under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a).

Remedies

• The court ordered the plaintiff to file the First Amended Complaint by March 9, 2026, in accordance with the opinion and order.
• The court denied leave to amend state-law claims for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress, citing immunity under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act.
• The court denied leave to amend claims against the Broken Arrow Police Department, as it lacks the capacity to be sued.
• The court granted leave to amend the plaintiff's federal claims against the City of Broken Arrow and the unknown police officers, with specific limitations on the theories of municipal liability that can be pursued.
• The court denied leave to re-add Michael Ferguson as a defendant due to expiration of the 90-day service period and lack of authority to extend it.

Legal Principles

• The court determined the City of Broken Arrow was immune from state-law claims (malicious prosecution, IIED, and negligent training) under Oklahoma's Governmental Tort Claims Act (OGTCA), particularly its discretionary function exemption (§155(5)).
• The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) regarding leave to amend pleadings, emphasizing the discretion of courts to grant or deny such amendments based on factors like futility and prejudice. The Monell doctrine under 42 U.S.C. §1983 was also central to evaluating municipal liability claims against the City of Broken Arrow.

Precedent Name

• Valdez v. Macdonald
• Waller v. City & County of Denver
• Board of County Commissioners of Bryan County, Okla. v. Brown
• London v. Beaty
• Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York
• Nail v. City of Henryetta
• Castleglen, Inc. v. Resolution Trust Corp.
• Nguyen v. Oklahoma
• Foman v. Davis
• Schneider v. City of Grand Junction Police Department

Cited Statute

• Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act
• Civil Rights Act of 1871

Judge Name

Passage Text

• Leave to amend is DENIED as to Plaintiff's claims against Defendants (1) Michael Ferguson and (2) Broken Arrow Police Department. These entities shall not be included in the FAC case caption.
• Given these constraints, City is necessarily immune from suit for Plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim. Plaintiff alleges Ferguson acted 'outside the bounds of lawful police procedure,' 'without probable cause,' and 'with malice' in initiating criminal proceedings against Plaintiff. City is still immune from this malicious prosecution claim, and amendment to add this claim would be futile.
• Plaintiff has sufficiently pled a factual basis for municipal liability against City based on City's actions or inactions leading to the second incident.