CLAREMORE, Okla., (The Oklahoma Post) – October 13, 2025
When a sitting sheriff admits that his jail has operated “out of standards for five years,” the words alone become evidence. Sheriff Chris Elliott of Wagoner County made that admission on July 19, 2021, telling county commissioners that the jail had been run unlawfully and contrary to state jail medical standards for at least five years. That statement recently resurfaced by citizens on the Microscope of Truth Facebook page now echoes against a growing stack of federal court filings placing Elliott’s office at the center of an evolving civil-rights saga.
https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1D2VxGZ2p9
A Death in Custody and a Pattern of Neglect
Elliott took office in July 2017. His five-year window of non-compliance thus spans virtually his entire tenure leading up to Angela Liggans’ death in custody on June 2, 2021. Liggans, a 52-year-old diabetic, died of diabetic ketoacidosis in an isolation cell after jail staff failed to provide her insulin for more than four days. The Microscope of Truth post alleges that during this period the Wagoner County Jail had no licensed medical staff on site and that its contracted physician “rarely came to the jail.”
Records and witness accounts support those allegations. In a grand jury petition filed in April 2025, citizens claimed Sheriff Elliott “failed to staff the Wagoner County Detention Facility with qualified medical personnel,” noting that he hired a medical assistant, Haley Longshore, as the de facto jail health administrator. Longshore, who was not a registered nurse or doctor, was legally unqualified to diagnose conditions or dispense prescription medications. The jail’s physician of record was an M.D., but according to Sheriff Elliott’s own later statements, “she never came in and laid eyes on [the] patient” who died. In an online comment thread about Liggans’ death, Elliott acknowledged that “the doctor should have had Ms. Liggans sent to a hospital” and that “the jail administrator should have demanded the doctor do her job.” He conceded, “Obviously the Sheriff shouldn’t have trusted either one of them.” Under federal law (42 U.S.C. § 1983), such deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs can constitute a violation of the inmate’s constitutional rights.
On social media, Elliott’s defenders have tried to dismiss the jail’s critics as guided by “hate” or “lawyer narratives.” Yet tellingly, Elliott himself joined the Facebook discussion. He insisted that aside from a period of four days when Liggans “refused to take her medications,” she had been given proper care. That claim was immediately challenged by commenters armed with public records: they pointed out that Haley Longshore whom the sheriff’s office had at times referred to as a nurse “was never a nurse at all.” In fact, the lawsuit later filed by Liggans’ family confirmed that Liggans “was not seen by a physician nor by a nurse” in the days before her death. The exchange left a permanent public record flatly contradicting earlier official assurances about proper jail staffing and inmate care.
( Wagoner County settled the Liggans wrongful-death lawsuit for $13.5 million in late 2024. To cover the settlement, county voters approved a sales tax increase in February 2025. “It’s unfortunate that the people have to pay for something that they didn’t do that the sheriff did,” one resident told local news.)
The Krueger Case: From County Road to Federal Courtroom
The controversy over jail standards is magnified by Krueger v. Phillips, a high-profile federal case naming Sheriff Elliott and several of his deputies. Filed in 2021 after the death of Jeffrey Krueger during a 2019 traffic-stop arrest, the lawsuit alleges that multiple officers used excessive force – including repeated taser shocks and a prolonged prone restraint that led to Krueger’s death. Krueger, 36, was pulled over on July 1, 2019 for a minor traffic infraction. According to court documents, Wagoner County deputies “pulled him out of his car by his hair, slammed his head on the ground, and continued to punch and tase him in stun mode after [they] became aware he was subdued.” A medical examiner ruled the death a homicide caused by positional asphyxia due to restraint.
On August 22, 2025, the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of qualified immunity for eight law enforcement officers involved in Krueger’s arrest. This included Wagoner County deputies and City of Wagoner police officers on the scene. In its 84-page opinion, the appellate panel concluded that a reasonable jury could find the defendants “subjected Mr. Krueger to a prone restraint … while he was handcuffed” and kept weight on his back for about four minutes. The judges noted that by the time of the incident, it was clearly established law in the Tenth Circuit that once a suspect is physically subdued and handcuffed, continued force – such as pressure on the back or taser use – is unreasonable. They also emphasized that every officer present has an immediate duty to intervene to stop excessive force by colleagues. In other words, the old shield of staying passive no longer applies: if you see something, you are legally expected to stop it.
Sheriff Elliott’s role in the Krueger case is also under scrutiny. While he was not physically at the scene, the lawsuit claims that his post-incident conduct effectively ratified his deputies’ actions. Notably, on the very day Krueger died, Elliott nominated two of the involved deputies Kaleb Phillips and Nicholas Orr for a “medal of valor” award. (Toxicology reports later showed Krueger was neither drunk nor on drugs, undermining initial claims that he was an “impaired driver”) Plaintiffs argue that by praising and rewarding the officers, the sheriff ratified their conduct as official policy. Federal Judge Ronald A. White agreed this theory is plausible: he denied summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ Monell claim, ruling that a jury must decide whether Elliott’s medal of valor response was the “moving force” behind a violation of Krueger’s rights. Judge White also ruled that a state-law assault and battery claim tied to the fatal use of force must be resolved at trial. In short, Sheriff Elliott and by extension Wagoner County could be found directly liable if a jury concludes the deputies’ force was not only excessive but officially condoned.
Defendants’ Bid to Delay and the Court’s Answer
Facing these developments, attorneys for Sheriff Elliott and his co-defendants attempted a last-ditch maneuver: delay the trial by asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. On October 7, 2025, the defense filed an “Opposed Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (Document 403 in the case docket). The motion indicated they planned to petition the Supreme Court to review the Tenth Circuit’s decision. It argued that the appellate judges took an “officers-as-a-group” approach essentially treating the officers collectively which the defense claimed conflicts with other circuits’ requirement for individualized analysis of each officer’s conduct. Citing Clinton v. Jones and INS v. Legalization Assistance Project, the brief urged Judge White to exercise discretionary authority to pause the case, asserting that their Supreme Court petition would raise substantial questions.
Judge White’s answer came swiftly. On October 10, 2025, he issued Minute Order 405, denying the stay in no uncertain terms. “As Defendants have not shown that the petition would present a substantial question and that there is good cause for a stay, … the Opposed Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending [Certiorari] is DENIED,” the order stated. In essence, the court found no extraordinary circumstances to justify further delay.
Local reaction was immediate and pointed. “If this event had been handled correctly by Sheriff Elliott starting the night it happened, how many millions of dollars & additional family [members] would have been saved?” wrote commenter Barbara Jewel Sides-Johnson, adding, “I’m glad the judge denied this additional delay.” Public sentiment in Wagoner County has clearly soured on any prolonging of the legal process – especially at the taxpayers’ expense.
The Sheriff’s Public Defense
As the Krueger litigation marches forward, Sheriff Elliott (or a family member using the account “Danny Elliott”) has taken to social media to defend his office’s record. In the same October thread about the case, “Danny Elliott” asserted that Ms. Liggans had received all her medication while in jail, except for four days when she supposedly “refused to take her medications.” This claim, meant to counter allegations of neglect, fell flat with many observers. Critics responded by highlighting evidence that the jail’s medical protocols were grossly inadequate regardless of inmate cooperation. Indeed, Haley Longshore’s qualifications became a flashpoint: commenters noted that although the sheriff’s official statements had described Longshore as a nurse, she was “never a nurse at all” only a medical assistant with limited training. This public back-and-forth effectively undercut the narrative that Liggans’ death was simply the result of an uncooperative detainee. Instead, it reinforced the emerging picture of a jail that was ill-equipped and out of compliance, where systemic failures not just one inmate’s actions led to tragedy.
Importantly, Sheriff Elliott’s own comments in that thread lent credence to the allegations against his administration. He admitted, for example, that “the doctor should have had Ms. Liggans sent to a hospital” and that “the jail administrator should have demanded the doctor do her job.” These are admissions that proper procedure was not followed by his staff. And his remark that “the Sheriff shouldn’t have trusted either one of them” is effectively an acknowledgment that oversight was lacking at the very top. In the context of a civil-rights trial, such statements could be viewed by a jury as evidence of the sheriff’s deliberate indifference or even a tacit policy of ignoring known risks.
Depositions Reveal What the Record Couldn’t Hide
Newly surfaced deposition transcripts from the Krueger v. Phillips and Liggins v. Wagoner County cases reveal internal contradictions between the sheriff’s public statements and what his staff testified to under oath.
In the highlighted testimony, jail employees admitted that no standing policy existed to provide juice or glucose for inmates reporting low blood sugar, despite repeated pleas from diabetic detainees like Angela Liggins. One exchange captures it plainly:
Q: That would prevent your staff from giving her juice when she told you she’s trying to prevent her blood sugar from getting too low?
A: No, I’m not aware of any policy of that.
Other sections show detention officers mocking or dismissing Liggins’ medical distress. When she pleaded, “Do you want me to die?” an officer reportedly replied, “You ain’t getting nothing.” The witness later conceded under questioning that such a response was “possibly” grounds for discipline—but none was ever imposed.
In a separate deposition, the jail’s medical assistant acknowledged prescribing Benadryl for inmates exhibiting signs of severe distress—including burning in the arms, shortness of breath, and chest pain—without ever physically examining them or consulting a doctor.
Q: And without ever seeing the patient, you made some kind of diagnosis that led you to give him Benadryl; is that right?
A: I can’t say that I never saw this patient.
The same witness later conceded there was no medical record documenting those decisions, and no physician oversight.
These depositions paint a picture of systemic neglect, far beyond the sheriff’s Facebook assurances that “the doctor should have done her job.” They illustrate a jail culture that normalized indifference—where the sick were given antihistamines instead of care, and staff confusion replaced medical procedure.
What the Documents Show
The federal court record as of fall 2025 confirms several key points:
- Sheriff Elliott remains an active defendant. Judge White’s rulings in March 2024 denied Elliott summary judgment on critical claims. Specifically, Elliott (in his official capacity) must face the §1983 “policy or custom” claim that he ratified his deputies’ actions in the Krueger incident. The court held that plaintiffs had put forth enough evidence (e.g. the valor awards) for a jury to decide whether this post-incident ratification effectively condoned excessive force. In Judge White’s words: “It is DENIED as to the § 1983 claims of unconstitutional policies or customs in the form of ratification of the use of excessive force.” In addition, the state-law tort claims for Krueger’s death – including assault and battery were allowed to proceed against the county (which is liable for employees’ actions) A status conference order entered on October 1, 2025, lists Sheriff Elliott, the Wagoner County Board of Commissioners (the county), and multiple deputies and officers as active defendants headed to trial.
- A “summary jury trial” is on the horizon. Recognizing the complexity and stakes of Krueger v. Phillips, the court has scheduled a summary jury trial (a short-form, advisory jury proceeding) and settlement conference before U.S. Magistrate Judge Jason A. Robertson on December 17–18, 2025. This non-binding trial is intended to facilitate a potential settlement by giving both sides a preview of how a jury might view the evidence. All parties are expected to attend and weigh any resulting settlement recommendations. If no settlement is reached, the case will proceed to a full jury trial in 2026, where the county could face a multi-million dollar verdict on top of the Liggans payout.
Legal and Public Reckoning
The overlapping pieces of evidence Sheriff Elliott’s recorded admission of long-term non-compliance, his partial loss of immunity in federal court, and even his candid Facebook concessions – create a self-corroborating pattern rarely seen in public office litigation. Each element tells the same basic story: years of operating “out of standards” and a delayed reckoning when tragedies occurred. Under the fresh precedent set by the Tenth Circuit in Krueger v. Phillips, counties and their sheriffs can no longer rely on qualified immunity shields or blame-shifting to avoid accountability. Group misconduct is actionable. Inaction is actionable. And a public admission of neglect may turn out to be the most damaging evidence of all.
As the federal proceedings move toward a jury, Wagoner County faces not only potential civil judgments in the millions, but a deeper test of public trust. Local residents – some of whom have literally bought in via higher taxes – are watching closely. The ultimate question is whether the sheriff’s office can recover from five years “out of standards” and implement lasting reforms. That recovery, observers say, will depend on a level of transparency and accountability that has so far been absent.
The Oklahoma Post will continue to monitor the court filings in Krueger v. Phillips and related proceedings, including any developments in the investigation of Angela Liggans’ death. All statements are sourced from public records and verified reports; this story will be updated as new information emerges.
Sources: Grand Jury Petition (Wagoner Co., 2025) nondoc.comnondoc.com; Broken Arrow Sentinel basentinel.com basentinel.com; NonDoc (Aug. 27, 2025) nondoc.com nondoc.com; Tenth Circuit Opinion in Krueger v. Phillips ca10.uscourts.gov ca10.uscourts.gov; E.D. Okla. Order (Mar. 26, 2024) govinfo.gov govinfo.gov; KTUL News 8 (Jan. 13, 2025) ktul.com ktul.com; KJRH News kjrh.com.
The Oklahoma Post continues to monitor filings in Krueger v. Phillips and related proceedings concerning Angela Liggins’ death. Public records and verified statements will be added as new information emerges.
Writing By: Kim Waxlar | Editing by Robbie Robertson
Got evidence, events, birthdays, obits or inside info?
Email The Oklahoma Post confidentially: editor@theokpost.com
And for the record: unlike the courthouse clique, The Oklahoma Post runs on facts, not dark money.
© 2025 The Oklahoma Post |
By The People’s Popular Paper | Oklahoma Special Report
2025 -The Oklahoma Post – TheOKPost.com is dedicated to delivering relevant news and information to Oklahomans, sharing their stories, pictures, and experiences. The content on this website includes contributions from various individuals and links to external public and privately owned sources. The views and opinions expressed in user-generated content are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect The Oklahoma Post. The Oklahoma Post does not independently verify the accuracy of third-party contributions and rely upon contributors to fact-check their work. By sharing links and allowing open contributions, TheOKPost.com exercises the right to free speech and providing a platform for diverse perspectives.
