Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

TITITT Case.3:03-icmv-OO4f)Uif3T:?_Doc_u£rTf Page 1i'of 4 __]
° O O
N
l
i
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT I
Samuel Bowens : CIVIL NO. ` .. if ii E
3:()3cv400(CFD)j ` pr . U,
V. ; ;._i·;‘ _ ' nf i
Mark W. Strange, et al 1 February 10, 2QQ4jj`g;_» I _l ._ ii
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES it I
The defendants hereby respond to the allegations of plaintiffs complaint in
corresponding paragraphs:
1. Denied.
2. The defendants are without sufficient information upon which to form a belief and C
therefore leave the plaintiff to his proof
l 3. The defendants admit that the plaintiff was a sentenced inmate within the custody
of the Department of Correction. As to the remainder of allegations contained in this paragraph,
the defendants are without sufficient information upon which to form a belief and therefore leave
the plaintiff to his proof
4. The defendants admit that during some of the times mentioned in the plaintiffs
complaint, Mark Strange was the Warden of Osborn Correctional Institution. The remainder of
the allegations contained in this paragraph are Denied.
5. The defendants admit that during some of the times mentioned in the plaintiffs
complaint, the defendant Gaudet was employed at Osborn Correctional Institution as a
correctional ofiicial. The remainder of the allegations contained in this paragraph are Denied.
l
l
I l
l
l






i ·Case 3:03-cv-OO400(Q§ D Document 34 Filed O2/1262304 Page 2 \of 4 i
l l
i 6. The defendants admit that on various dates, the defendant Dr. Serafini provided I
medical care to the plaintiff including but not limited to examining the plaintiff The remainder 3
of the allegations contained in this paragraph are Denied.
7. The defendants admit that during some of the times mentioned in the plaintiffs
complaint, the defendant Levester was the Warden of the Willard—Cybulski Correctional (
Institution. The remainder of the allegations contained in this paragraph are Denied. i
8. Admitted.
9. Denied.
10. Admitted. Q
11-15. Denied.
16. The defendants are without sufficient information upon which to form a belief and i
therefore leave the plaintiff to his proof} J
17-1 8. Denied. I
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
The defendants assert the following Affirmative Defenses:
First Affirmative Defense:
The plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. g
Second Affirmative Defense:
The plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies pursuant to the Prison Litigation
`
Reform Act. |
Third Affirmative Defense
Each and every defendant in this action is entitled to qualified immunity.
········r···········r "_ """‘"*"""'_—_""' “"*"H"li "

I
. · I
Case 3:03-cv-OO400(C>FD Document 34 Filed O2/1?2§)O4 Page 3 of 4
Fourth Administrative Directive
I
The Eleventh Amendment provides immunity.
I
Fifth Affirmative Defense I
I
The plaintiffs claims are precluded by Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 4-141 through 4-164 and § 4-165.
Sixth Affirmative Defense I
The defendants do not have sufficient personal involvement in any constitutional violations
alleged. I
SET-OFF
The defendants claim as a set-off against any amount the plaintiff might recover the costs
of the plaintiff s incarceration in the amount of approximately $37,000.00 per year. I
I I
DEFENDANTS i
Mark Strange, et al
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL .
9 _ — I
BY: r" I
. L . i enbrink
Assistant orney General
110 Shennan Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Federal Bar #ct08575
lynn.wittenbrinl<@po.state.ct.us
Tel: (860) 808-5450
Fax: (860) 808-5591
3 I

. R -._ [
Case 3:03-cv-OO400;Q_FD Document 34 Filed O2/1g/2004 Page 4 of 4
iw) kr}
CERTIFICATION
n I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed first class postage prepaid to the
following on this 10th day of February 2004:
John R. Williams R
Williams & Pattis
51 Eim st. i
New Haven, CT 06510
E
. l.44__1_- i vl_ `f114;L¤·l·A·_ -
ynn ittenbrink --
Assistan Attorney General
i
i
!
i
l