by Douglas Ankney

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, on February 27, 2026, upheld a consultants’ finding and decision that Oklahoma is not honoring its obligations under a consent decree to provide mental health treatment to persons adjudged incompetent to stand trial.

On March 1, 2023, Leslie Briggs, as next friend of T.W. and B.S.; Evan Watson, as next friend of C.R.; and Henry A. Meyer, III, as next friend of A.M., filed in the U.S. District Court a Class Action Complaint on behalf of themselves and for others similarly situated (“Plaintiffs”) against Allie Friesen (who was then Commissioner of the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services), and Holly Webb, Executive Director of the Oklahoma Forensic Center, in their official capacities (“Defendants”).

The Plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that, “due to a lack of forensic beds, persons who were declared incompetent in Oklahoma state court criminal proceedings were forced to wait prolonged periods of time to receive court-ordered competency restoration treatment and, during the waiting period, the persons received little to no mental health treatment in violation of Due Process rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S Constitution.”

After extensive negotiations, the Parties entered into a Consent Decree that was approved by the Court on March 10, 2025. The Court appointed three “Consultants” to monitor, enforce and report compliance with the Consent Decree. The Consent Decree provided, among other things, a 90-day period for Defendants “in consultation with Consultants and Class Counsel” to “develop and begin to implement the Plan” to “improve the Department’s delivery of competency evaluations and timely Restoration Treatment.”

The Consent Decree further required that “[t]he Plan’s components must be approved by the Consultants” and mandated that the Defendants use “Best Efforts” to develop and implement the Plan. “Best Efforts” were defined as “taking reasonable steps, actions, and measures, consistent with best professional standards, practices and guidelines to accomplish or bring about the intended and described result.”

Specifically, the strategic Plan of the Consent Decree required the implementation of an In-Jail Competency Restoration Treatment Program. The Consent Decree also included a dispute resolution process (DRP) that invested the Consultants with the authority to mediate disputes between the Parties. Pursuant to the DRP, in November 2025, the Plaintiffs provided a “Notice of Dispute” that identified 11 areas of alleged noncompliance by the Defendants.

On January 12, 2026, the Parties attended the Consultants mediation session per the DRP. On January 23, 2026, the Consultants issued the “Findings and Recommendations from Mediation” (“Decision”). In the Decision, the Consultants “explicitly concluded that the [Defendants] had not used Best Efforts to: (1) develop and implement the strategic Plan, and (2) develop and implement [the] In-Jail Competency Restoration Treatment Program.”

On February 2, 2026, pursuant to the DRP, the Defendants moved the Court for Review and Relief from the Decision. After a hearing on the Defendants’ claim, the Court observed that the Defendants: (1) “contend that the factual findings in the Consultants’ Decision are arbitrary and capricious,” and (2) “contend that the Dispute Resolution Process denies them Due Process.”

Addressing Defendants contention (2) first, the Court observed that both the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and art. 2, § 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution provide that “[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the word “person” as used in the context of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause “cannot, by any reasonable mode of interpretation, be expanded to encompass the States of the Union.” See: South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966).

And in Oklahoma, ex rel. Okla. Tax Comm’n v. Int’l Registration Plan, Inc., Oklahoma had conceded that “as a State, it is not protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” See: Okla. Tax Comm’n v. Int’l Registration Plan, Inc., 455 F.3d 1107 (10th Cir. 2006). The Plaintiffs in the instant case sued the Defendants in their official capacities, meaning the allegations were not against the officials themselves but against their offices. “As such, it is no different from a suit against the State itself.” See: Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989).

Thus, since the Defendants failed to establish a right to due process, they were not entitled to relief based on an alleged violation of due process rights. Turning to contention (1), the Court observed that the Defendants sought review of the Consultants’ finding that the Defendants failed to use “Best Efforts” to develop and implement the Strategic Plan and to develop and implement the Jail-Based Competency Restoration Plan.

As to the Strategic Plan, the record showed that the Defendants had failed to communicate with the Consultants from June 6, 2025, through January 12, 2026, and the Defendants failed to provide requested information as to the development and implementation of the Strategic Plan. Concerning the Jail-Based Competency Restoration Plan, the Consultants acknowledged that Defendants had explained that the Tulsa County facility had no available space for the Plan.

But Defendants had neither contacted any other county nor communicated with consultants about alternative means of implementation of the Jail-Based Competency Restoration Plan. By the terms of the Consent Decree, the Court reviewed Defendants’ contention under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard. Because the Consultants’ Decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors cited above and was not a clear error in judgment, the Decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious. See: Marsh v. Oregon Nat. Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989).

Therefore, the Defendants were not entitled to relief on contention (1). Accordingly, the Court denied the Defendants’ motion. Commenting on the decision, Tulsa County Sheriff Vic Regalado said “[o]n average, we’ll have anywhere from 45 to 60 people in our jail awaiting [mental health] treatment.” He added, “[t]hey’re not at a point where they can be a part of their defense. And they’re also not getting potentially the mental health treatment that they need outside of the jail.” Because of conflicting, and sometimes missing, data, exact numbers are unavailable.

But between 130 and 250 persons adjudged incompetent to stand trial are awaiting treatment at any given time. And wait times reached an average of 215 days, meaning defendants were spending up to seven months in jail after a judge had found them incompetent to stand trial and in need of psychiatric care.

The process first begins when the issue of a defendant’s competency is raised by the judge or the parties. An evaluation is ordered, which in itself can take weeks depending upon provider availability. The judge then schedules a hearing to take evidence of those who evaluated the defendant. If the judge finds the defendant is mentally incompetent to assist with his or her defense, the court orders that the person be treated with the aim of restoring the defendant to competency. That is where the process bogs down dramatically in Oklahoma. The leading cause for delay is a lack of bed space at the Oklahoma Forensic Center where the defendant receives the ordered restoration treatment.

The delays raise constitutional concerns on several fronts. First, the State is obligated to provide treatment to restore competency to defendants found incompetent. As Plaintiffs’ attorney Paul DeMuro makes clear, “[a] jail is not a therapeutic environment.” The mental condition of defendants who wait months for treatment often deteriorates, prolonging the process and leading to long-term commitments. Debbie Maddox, executive director of the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System, observed that people in need of mental health care are often charged with minor offenses, sent to jail where they live in fear and spend more time in jail awaiting treatment than they could be legally required to serve if convicted.

“The most they can serve is one year in the county jail,” Maddox said. “In some cases, defendants wait months just for an evaluation, followed by an additional nine to 12 months for restoration services.” See: Briggs v. Slavonic, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40531 (N.D. Okla. 2026)  

Additional source: The Oklahoman

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case