Free Answer to Amended Complaint - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv-00734-GMS

Document 25

Filed 04/10/2008

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) GOVERNOR RUTH ANN MINNER, ) ATTORNEY GENERAL CARL ) DANBERG, CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL ) SERVICES, DIRECTOR JAIME H. ) RIVERA, CHIEF MARVIN NEWTON, ) ) WARDEN RAPHAEL1 WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER STANLEY W. ) TAYLOR, SUPERVISOR PAUL PACECO, ) JOHN AND JANE DOE(S), and ) WARDEN SHERESE CARR, ) ) Defendants. ) WILLIAM JOSEPH WEBB, JR.,

C.A. No. 06-734-GMS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

RAPHAEL WILLIAMS' ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT COMES NOW, defendant Warden Raphael Williams ("Answering Defendant") by and through his undersigned counsel, and hereby answers the Amended Complaint of the plaintiff, William J. Webb, Jr. ("Plaintiff"). (D.I. 11). Answering Defendant responds to the Complaint by paragraph as follows: STATEMENT OF CLAIM 1. The allegations in this paragraph are not directed to Answering Defendant and no

response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations are denied. 2. The allegations in this paragraph are not directed to Answering Defendant and no

response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations are denied.

1

Improperly designated as Rafael in the Complaint.

Case 1:06-cv-00734-GMS

Document 25

Filed 04/10/2008

Page 2 of 5

3.

The allegations in this paragraph are not directed to Answering Defendant and no

response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations are denied. 4. It is admitted that on April 27, 2006, Answering Defendant was served with the

Complaint in the matter of Seawright v. Williams, et al. C.A. No. 05-576-GMS. It is admitted that Answering Defendant was the Deputy Warden of Howard R. Young Correctional Institution from February 23, 1997 to February 5, 1998. The remainder of the allegations in paragraph No. 4 are denied. 5. The allegations in this paragraph are not directed to Answering Defendant and no

response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations are denied. 6. The allegations in this paragraph are not directed to Answering Defendant and no

response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations are denied. 7. As to the first sentence, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to

affirm or deny the allegations as set forth. The remainder of the paragraph is not directed to Answering Defendants and states legal arguments or conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations are denied. 8. The allegations in this paragraph are not directed to Answering Defendant and no

response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations are denied. 9. The allegations in this paragraph are not directed to Answering Defendant and no

response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations are denied. 10. The allegations in this paragraph are not directed to Answering Defendant and no

response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations are denied.

-2-

Case 1:06-cv-00734-GMS

Document 25

Filed 04/10/2008

Page 3 of 5

RELIEF It is specifically denied that Plaintiff is entitled to any monetary damages, punitive, compensatory, or otherwise. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive or any other relief. DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Answering Defendant is immune from liability under the Eleventh Amendment. Answering Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. As to any claims under state law, Answering Defendant is entitled to immunity

under the State Tort Claims Act, 10 Del. C. § 4001 et seq. 7. As to any claims under state law, Answering Defendant is entitled to sovereign

immunity in his official capacity. 8. Answering Defendant cannot be held liable in the absence of personal

involvement for the alleged constitutional deprivations. 9. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to hold Answering Defendant liable based on

supervisory responsibilities, the doctrine of respondeat superior or vicarious liability is not a basis for liability in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 10. Answering Defendant, in his official capacity, is not liable for alleged violations

of Plaintiff's constitutional rights as he is not a "person" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 11. 12. Lack of jurisdiction over the person and subject matter. This action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

-3-

Case 1:06-cv-00734-GMS

Document 25

Filed 04/10/2008

Page 4 of 5

WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendant respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his favor and against Plaintiff as to all claims and that attorney fees be awarded to the Answering Defendant. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STATE OF DELAWARE /s/ Stacey X. Stewart _____ Stacey X. Stewart, # 4667 Deputy Attorney General Department of Justice 820 N. French Street, 6th Floor Wilmington, De 19801 (302) 577-8400 [email protected] Dated: April 10, 2008 Attorney for Raphael Williams

-4-

Case 1:06-cv-00734-GMS

Document 25

Filed 04/10/2008

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on April 10, 2008, I electronically filed Raphael Williams' Answer to the Complaint with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I hereby certify that on April 10, 2008, I have mailed by United States Postal Service, the document to the following non-registered participant: William Joseph Webb, Jr. SBI # 256056 Delaware Correctional Center 1181 Paddock Road Smyrna, DE 19977 /s/ Stacey X. Stewart Stacey X. Stewart, # 4667 Deputy Attorney General Department of Justice 820 N. French St., 6th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 577-8400 [email protected]