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

Case 3:01-cv-01786-CFD

Document 108

Filed 10/05/2004

Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT PRISONER CIVIL NO. 3:01CV1786 (CFD)(WIG)

GARY SADLER v.

: :

GOVERNOR JOHN ROWLAND, ET AL. :

OCTOBER 4, 2004

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF THE DEFENDANTS ARMSTRONG, MILLING, OTTOLINI, MASELLA, SALADINI AND WOODCOCK TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT DATED JULY 3, 2003 Preamble 1. preamble. A. Parties 1. As to paragraph 1, the defendants admit that the plaintiff is a sentenced inmate of The defendants, John Armstrong, et al., deny the allegations in plaintiff's

the Connecticut Department of Correction. The rest and remainder of the allegations are denied. 2. As to paragraph 2, the defendants admit that John Armstrong was Connecticut

Commissioner of Correction during the times referenced in the plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The rest and remainder of the allegations are denied. 3. As to paragraph 3, the defendants admit that the defendant Lynn Milling was

Interstate Compact Supervisor for the Connecticut Department of Correction during the times referenced in the plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The rest and remainder of the allegations are denied. 4. As to paragraph 4, the defendants admit that the defendant Ottolini was employed

by the Connecticut Department of Correction, Health Services, during the times referenced in the plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The rest and remainder of the allegations are denied.

Case 3:01-cv-01786-CFD

Document 108

Filed 10/05/2004

Page 2 of 6

5.

As to paragraph 5, the defendants admit that the defendant Masella was employed

by the Connecticut Department of Correction during the times referenced in the plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The rest and remainder of the allegations are denied. 6. As to paragraph 6, the defendants admit that the defendant Saladini was employed

by the Connecticut Department of Correction during the times referenced in the plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The rest and remainder of the allegations are denied. 7. As to paragraph 7, the defendants admit that the defendant Woodcock was

employed by the Connecticut Department of Correction during the times referenced in the plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The rest and remainder of the allegations are denied. 8. As to paragraph 8, all allegations against the defendant Tokarz were dismissed by

the Court in its Ruling on Motion to Dismiss dated September 13, 2004. 9. As to paragraphs 9-18, all allegations concerning the Virginia defendants were

severed and transferred by the Court in its Ruling on Motion to Dismiss and for Change of Venue dated September 13, 2004. B. Jurisdiction As to plaintiff's jurisdiction paragraph, the allegations are denied. C. Nature of the Case As to plaintiff's Nature of the Case paragraph, the allegations are denied. D. Supporting Facts 1. As to paragraph 1, the defendants admit that the plaintiff was a Connecticut

inmate housed in Virginia between January 10 and November 3, 2000. Allegations against the defendant Tokarz have been dismissed. Allegations against the Virginia defendants have been severed and transferred. The rest and remainder of the allegations are denied.

2

Case 3:01-cv-01786-CFD

Document 108

Filed 10/05/2004

Page 3 of 6

2.

As to paragraphs 2-17, allegations against the Virginia defendants have been

severed and transferred. The rest and remainder of the allegations against the Connecticut defendants are denied. E. Previous Lawsuits and Administrative Relief 1. F. The allegations in paragraphs 1 and 2 are denied.

Previously Dismissed Actions or Appeals 1. As to the allegations contained under this heading, the defendants do not have

sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and therefore leave the plaintiff to his proof thereof. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The allegations of the Amended Complaint do not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE To the extent that this case is effectively against state officials and employees in their official capacities, it is barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE At all times relevant to this lawsuit, the defendants acted within the scope of their duties as officials/employees of the State of Connecticut performing discretionary functions and they acted within their qualified immunity. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The defendants, at all times relevant to the Amended Complaint, were state officials/employees and their conduct was not wanton, reckless or malicious, and was within the

3

Case 3:01-cv-01786-CFD

Document 108

Filed 10/05/2004

Page 4 of 6

discharge of their duties or within the scope of their employment. They are, therefore, immune from liability pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-165 and under the doctrine of sovereign immunity and their common law privileges and immunities. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As to all claims alleging state law causes of action such may only be maintained upon authorization by statute or by order of the State Claims Commissioner, and since the plaintiff has not and cannot demonstrate authority or authorization, this action is barred under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Federal Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims, if any. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff has not alleged or shown physical injury as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff has failed to allege and prove personal participation or responsibility. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The case should be dismissed because the plaintiff has failed to join an indispensable party.

4

Case 3:01-cv-01786-CFD

Document 108

Filed 10/05/2004

Page 5 of 6

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Paragraph Seven of the Amended Complaint should be dismissed under the Prior Pending Action Doctrine.

DEFENDANTS John Armstrong, et al. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY:

___/s/______________________________ Robert F. Vacchelli Assistant Attorney General 110 Sherman Street Hartford, CT 06105 Federal Bar #ct05222 E-Mail: [email protected] Tel.: (860) 808-5450 Fax: (860) 808-5591

5

Case 3:01-cv-01786-CFD

Document 108

Filed 10/05/2004

Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed to the following on this 4th day of October, 2004: Gary Sadler #236395 MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution 1153 East Street South Suffield, CT 06080 Sr. Asst. Attorney General Mark R. Davis Office of the Attorney General 900 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23219 Steven R. Strom Assistant Attorney General 110 Sherman Street Hartford, CT 06105 _____/s___________________________ Robert F. Vacchelli Assistant Attorney General

6