Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00620-DFM

Document 24

Filed 08/09/2005

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

EFRAIN HERNANDEZ v. JOHN J. ARMSTRONG, ET AL.,

: : :

CIVIL NO. 3:03CV620 (RNC)

AUGUST 8, 2005

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES The defendants, John Armstrong, et al., hereby file their answer and affirmative defenses to the plaintiff's complaint. I. Preliminary Statement Denied. II. Jurisdiction. Denied. III. Facts 1. The defendants admit that, on July 30, 1995, the plaintiff was brought to segregation for an incident that occurred in G-pod in Corrigan CI, and that a disciplinary report was written by Lt. Pompi. The remaining allegations of paragraph 1 are denied. 2. The plaintiff is left to his proof. 3. Denied. 4. The defendants admit that the plaintiff's guilty plea was accepted and the plaintiff signed the disciplinary report form agreeing to this plea. The remaining allegations are denied. 5. The plaintiff is left to his proof.

Case 3:03-cv-00620-DFM

Document 24

Filed 08/09/2005

Page 2 of 4

6. With respect to the allegation that a certain habeas corpus action was assigned a certain docket number, the plaintiff is left to his proof. The remaining allegations in paragraph 6 are denied. 7. The plaintiff is left to his proof. 8. Denied. 9. The allegation that the plaintiff would not be eligible for good time credits while in administrative segregation is admitted. With respect to the remaining allegations in paragraph 9, the plaintiff is left to his proof. 10. Denied. IV. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies 1. The plaintiff is left to his proof.. 2. The plaintiff is left to his proof. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and therefore should be dismissed. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The defendants, in their individual capacities, are entitled to qualified immunity, since at all relevant times, the actions of the individual defendants comported with those of an objectively reasonable correctional official, and each did not knowingly violate any of the plaintiff's clearly established rights. Alternatively, the constitutional rights alleged by the

plaintiff to have been violated were not clearly established at the time of the events giving rise to this action.

2

Case 3:03-cv-00620-DFM

Document 24

Filed 08/09/2005

Page 3 of 4

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages.

DEFENDANTS JOHN ARMSTRONG

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY:

_________/s/________________________ Terrence M. O'Neill Assistant Attorney General 110 Sherman Street Hartford, CT 06105 Federal Bar #ct 10835 E-Mail: [email protected] Tel: (860) 808-5450 Fax: (860) 808-5591

3

Case 3:03-cv-00620-DFM

Document 24

Filed 08/09/2005

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed to the following on this 8th day of August, 2005: Efrain Hernandez, No. 155161 Radgowski CI 986 Norwich-New London Tpke Uncasville, CT 06080

__________/s/________________________ Terrence M. O'Neill Assistant Attorney General

4