Okla. Stat. » Title 57 — PRISONS AND REFORMATORIES
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 566 (2026)

Dismissal of inmate's action - Definitions - Sanctions for

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

frivolous or malicious claims - Judgment - Liability for costs and fees.

A. Any action by an inmate initiated against any person, party or entity, the state, the Department of Corrections, an entity contracting with the Department of Corrections to provide correctional services, another state agency, or political subdivision, or an original action in an appellate court, or an appeal of an action whether or not the plaintiff was represented in the district court, may be: 1. Dismissed with or without prejudice, by the court on its own motion or on a motion of the defendant, if all administrative and statutory remedies available to the inmate have not been exhausted in a timely manner; or 2. Dismissed with prejudice, by the court on a motion of the defendant, if the court is satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious. B. As used in this title: 1. “Frivolous” means having no reasonable basis in law or fact, or lacking any good faith legal argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, or being maintained solely or primarily for delay or to harass the party filed against; 2. “Inmate” or “inmate in a penal institution” includes, but is not limited to, a person presently or formerly in the custody or under the supervision of the Department of Corrections or the Federal Bureau of Prisons, a person who has been convicted of a crime and is incarcerated for that crime in a county jail, a person who is being held in custody for trial or sentencing, or a person on probation or parole; and 3. “Malicious” means filing numerous actions, or actions brought in bad faith on de minimus issues. C. If the court determines from the pleadings or the evidence that one or more of the causes of action are frivolous or malicious, any one or more of the following sanctions may be imposed, after notice to the inmate and an opportunity for the inmate to respond, without the need for an additional hearing: 1. Award attorney fees and actual costs incurred by the state, the Department of Corrections, another state agency, a political subdivision, the Attorney General's Office, or the defendant, not to exceed Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) per frivolous cause of action; 2. Court costs not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) per cause of action; 3. Order the Department of Corrections to revoke up to seven hundred twenty (720) earned credits accrued by the inmate. In any case in which the prisoner submits a frivolous or malicious claim, or one that is intended solely or primarily for delay or to harass the party filed against, or testifies falsely or otherwise presents false evidence or information to the court in depositions or in a notarized statement to the court or commits a fraud upon the court,

the prisoner shall suffer a loss of earned credits. The earned credits shall be deducted upon a finding of fact and an order of the court. In the absence of such a finding by the court and upon review and recommendation by the Office of the Attorney General, a prison disciplinary hearing may be held to determine whether the prisoner has filed such a claim or evidence. Upon such a finding, the earned credits of the prisoner shall be revoked by the Department or political subdivision; 4. Order the Department or political subdivision to revoke permission to have nonessential personal property of the inmate, including, but not limited to, televisions, radios, stereos, or tape recorders. If permission is revoked, the Department shall take appropriate precautions to protect the property during the period of the revocation; 5. Impose a civil sanction in an amount not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00); or 6. Impose a monetary judgment against the inmate, not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), to be paid to each named defendant. D. Any award of attorney fees, or costs, or the imposition of a sanction shall serve as a judgment against the inmate and the Department or political subdivision is authorized to take up to eighty percent (80%) of the inmate's nonmandatory savings trust funds per month until paid. The judgment shall be subject to execution without further order of any court for a period of seven (7) years from the date of an award or imposition of a sanction. Added by Laws 1985, c. 57, § 5, eff. Nov. 1, 1985. Amended by Laws 1995, c. 141, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 1995; Laws 1999, c. 127, § 1, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 2002, c. 402, § 8, eff. July 1, 2002; Laws 2004, c. 168, § 10, emerg. eff. April 27, 2004; Laws 2004, c. 382, § 1, emerg. eff. June 3, 2004; Laws 2006, c. 31, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 2006; Laws 2007, c. 151, § 4, eff. July 1, 2007. NOTE: Laws 2004, c. 382, § 4 repealed the effective date in Laws 2004, c. 168, § 18, causing that chapter to revert to its emergency effective date.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2021 · leading case: Shabazz v. Keating, 1999 OK 26 (Okla. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Shabazz v. Keating, 1999 OK 26 (Okla. 1999). · cites it 8× “In short, the AG contends that because Shabazz can demonstrate no entitlement, either by habeas corpus or by mandamus, to the remedy he sought, his petition was facially frivolous within the meaning of 57 O.S.Supp.1995 § 566(B)(1). 6 As the AG analyzes the problem, Shabazz was…”
Mehdipour v. State Ex Rel. Dept. of Corr., 2004 OK 19 (Okla. 2004). “If a prisoner is found to be indigent and totally without any funds pursuant to this section at the time of filing, the case may proceed without prepayment of fees or partial fees.”
State Ex Rel. State Ins. Fund v. Great Plains Care Ctr., Inc., 2003 OK 79 (Okla. 2003). “1, and 57 O.S.Supp.1995 § 566(C). We said that a matter is frivolous when it has "no legitimate legal or factual basis and is so totally devoid of merit as to be regarded as facially unworthy of consideration.”
Loftis v. Oklahoma Dep't of Corr., 308 F. App'x 290 (10th Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “Loftis next sought judicial review of the disciplinary hearing in Oklahoma County District Court pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 564.1 . 1 The court found Loftis had received all due process protections.”
Parker v. Province, 415 F. App'x 19 (10th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “The state district court denied relief concluding Parker had already raised this claim; it imposed sanctions against him pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 57 § 566(C). 3 The OCCA affirmed and the federal district court denied Parker’s 28 U.”
Parker v. Dowling, 625 F. App'x 343 (10th Cir. 2015). “See Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 566 (C) (permitting a court to impose sanctions if “one or more of the causes of action are frivolous or malicious”).”
Ciempa v. Dinwiddie, 340 F. App'x 516 (10th Cir. 2009). “As a result, on April 18, 2007, the state court dismissed Ceimpa’s application under Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 566 (A)(1). Ciempa did not directly appeal this finding.”
Dopp v. Kirkendall, 2021 OK 52 (Okla. 2021). “2 57 O.S. 2011, § 566 defines "frivolous" and "malicious" in regard to inmate actions.”
Simmons v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 130 P.3d 305 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006). “57 O.S.2001 § 566(A)(1) (emphasis added).”
Reginald Dion Hughes v. Tennessee Bd. of Prob. & Parole (Dissent) (2017). “24 (A)(2); Okla. Stat. tit. 57, §§ 566 (A)(2), 566.3(F)(2)(a); Or.”
Williams v. Sirmon, 350 F. App'x 294 (10th Cir. 2009). “”); Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 566 (A)(1) (“Any action by an inmate initiated against any person .”
Day v. Snider, 125 P.3d 1229 (Okla. Civ. App. 2005). “57 O.S.2001 § 566(A)(1). . ODOC represents that it implemented a nonsmoking policy in 2000, applicable to Defendants, that reflected the contemporary standards at that time.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 566(A)(1) — 2 cases
Simmons v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 130 P.3d 305 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006). “57 O.S.2001 § 566(A)(1) (emphasis added).”
Day v. Snider, 125 P.3d 1229 (Okla. Civ. App. 2005). “57 O.S.2001 § 566(A)(1). . ODOC represents that it implemented a nonsmoking policy in 2000, applicable to Defendants, that reflected the contemporary standards at that time.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 566(B)(1) — 1 case
Shabazz v. Keating, 1999 OK 26 (Okla. 1999). “In short, the AG contends that because Shabazz can demonstrate no entitlement, either by habeas corpus or by mandamus, to the remedy he sought, his petition was facially frivolous within the meaning of 57 O.S.Supp.1995 § 566(B)(1). 6 As the AG analyzes the problem, Shabazz was…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 566(B)(l) — 1 case
Shabazz v. Keating, 1999 OK 26 (Okla. 1999). “In short, the AG contends that because Shabazz can demonstrate no entitlement, either by habeas corpus or by mandamus, to the remedy he sought, his petition was facially frivolous within the meaning of 57 O.S.Supp.1995 § 566(B)(1). 6 As the AG analyzes the problem, Shabazz was…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 566(C) — 3 cases
Shabazz v. Keating, 1999 OK 26 (Okla. 1999). “In short, the AG contends that because Shabazz can demonstrate no entitlement, either by habeas corpus or by mandamus, to the remedy he sought, his petition was facially frivolous within the meaning of 57 O.S.Supp.1995 § 566(B)(1). 6 As the AG analyzes the problem, Shabazz was…”
State Ex Rel. State Ins. Fund v. Great Plains Care Ctr., Inc., 2003 OK 79 (Okla. 2003). “1, and 57 O.S.Supp.1995 § 566(C). We said that a matter is frivolous when it has "no legitimate legal or factual basis and is so totally devoid of merit as to be regarded as facially unworthy of consideration.”
Parker v. Province, 415 F. App'x 19 (10th Cir. 2011). “The state district court denied relief concluding Parker had already raised this claim; it imposed sanctions against him pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 57 § 566(C). 3 The OCCA affirmed and the federal district court denied Parker’s 28 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.