Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cv-01315-REB-CBS

Document 108

Filed 10/19/2006

Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 01-cv-01315-REB-CBS LEONARD BALDAUF, Plaintiff,
v.

JOHN HYATT, et. al. Defendants.

DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Defendants John Hyatt, Robert Fahey, Betty Fulton, Paul Carreras, Connie Davis, Ken Maestas, Joseph Garcia, and David Archuleta (collectively, "Defendants"), by and through their counsel, Andrew D. Ringel, Esq. and Gillian Dale, Esq. of Hall & Evans, L.L.C., by way of answer to Plaintiff's Prisoner's Civil Rights Complaint (the "Complaint"), 1 admit, deny, and aver as follows: A. PARTIES 1. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Parties

section of the Complaint, Defendants admit that Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Colorado State Penitentiary at the time he filed his Complaint, but notes he is now incarcerated at the Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility.
1

On September 21, 2006, this Court issued an Order Adopting Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Defendants. This Answer addresses only those claims remaining in this case, and is filed solely on behalf of the Defendants remaining in the case.

Case 1:01-cv-01315-REB-CBS

Document 108

Filed 10/19/2006

Page 2 of 9

2.

Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Parties

section of the Complaint. 3. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Parties

section of the Complaint. 4. Gary Neet is no longer a Defendant in these proceedings, and as a result

no response is required to Paragraph 4 of the Parties section of the Complaint. 5. Gloria Masterson is no longer a Defendant in these proceedings, and as a

result no response is required to Paragraph 5 of the Parties section of the Complaint. 6. Charles Tappe is no longer a Defendant in these proceedings, and as a

result no response is required to Paragraph 6 of the Parties section of the Complaint. 7. Richard Martinez is no longer a Defendant in these proceedings, and as a

result no response is required to Paragraph 7 of the Parties section of the Complaint. 8. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Parties

section of the Complaint. 9. David Roberts is no longer a Defendant in these proceedings, and as a

result no response is required to Paragraph 9 of the Parties section of the Complaint. 10. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Parties

section of the Complaint. 11. William Zalman is no longer a Defendant in these proceedings, and as a

result no response is required to Paragraph 11 of the Parties section of the Complaint. 12. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Parties

section of the Complaint.

2

Case 1:01-cv-01315-REB-CBS

Document 108

Filed 10/19/2006

Page 3 of 9

13.

Patricia Romero is no longer a Defendant in these proceedings, and as a

result no response is required to Paragraph 13 of the Parties section of the Complaint. 14. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of the Parties

section of the Complaint, and note that Defendant Maestas was a Captain rather than a Lieutenant. 15. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of the Parties

section of the Complaint. 16. Gary Carr is no longer a Defendant in these proceedings, and as a result

no response is required to Paragraph 16 of the Parties section of the Complaint. 17. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the Parties

section of the Complaint, Defendants admit that Defendant Archuleta was a sergeant at the time of the events underlying the Complaint. 18. Chad Nelson is no longer a Defendant in these proceedings, and as a

result no response is required to Paragraph 18 of the Parties section of the Complaint. 19. The unknown property officer is no longer a Defendant in these

proceedings, and as a result no response is required to Paragraph 19 of the Parties section of the Complaint. 20. Nard Claar is no longer a Defendant in these proceedings, and as a result

no response is required to Paragraph 20 of the Parties section of the Complaint. 21. Richard Harlan is no longer a Defendant in these proceedings, and as a

result no response is required to Paragraph 21 of the Parties section of the Complaint.

3

Case 1:01-cv-01315-REB-CBS

Document 108

Filed 10/19/2006

Page 4 of 9

B. JURISDICTION Defendants deny that this Court has jurisdiction over the Complaint in light of the doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). While this Court determined in prior proceedings that it did have jurisdiction over the Complaint, Defendants reserve the right to address this issue in any subsequent appeal in this matter. C. NATURE OF THE CASE To the extent relevant to the claims remaining in this case, Defendants deny the allegations contained in the Section C of the Complaint. D. CAUSE OF ACTION Claim I With respect to the allegations contained in Claim I relating to various disciplinary proceedings against Plaintiff, Defendants state that the record of such proceedings speak for themselves and deny any of the allegations in Claim I inconsistent therewith. With respect to the allegations contained in Claim I relating to Plaintiff's claimed filing of grievances, Defendants state that any grievances actually submitted and any responses to such grievances speak for themselves and deny any of the allegations in Claim I inconsistent therewith. Defendants deny that they engaged in a campaign of

harassment, retaliation, and wrongful disciplinary charges against Plaintiff at any time during his incarceration at Fremont Correctional Facility. Defendants deny that any disciplinary actions against Plaintiff were initiated for purposes of retaliation, or that any of the other actions described in Claim I, to the extent true, were taken for purposes of retaliation. Defendants deny that they subjected Plaintiff to verbal abuse, deny that they

4

Case 1:01-cv-01315-REB-CBS

Document 108

Filed 10/19/2006

Page 5 of 9

threatened to find something to charge him with, deny that they warned him to expect retaliatory shakedowns, deny that they subjected him to an unusually lengthy and minute shakedown, deny that they destroyed his property, deny that they vowed to fire him for filing grievances, deny that they made false allegations against Plaintiff, deny that they took petty, spiteful actions against Plaintiff, and deny that they hindered his access to the grievance system in any manner. To the extent that any of the other allegations contained in Claim I can be considered relevant to the remaining Defendants, they are denied. Defendants deny that any of their actions let to chronic depression or suicide attempts by Plaintiff. Claim II Claim II was dismissed pursuant to this Court's Order of September 21, 2006, and as a result no response is required. To any extent the allegations contained in Claim II bear on the remaining claims, they are denied. E. PREVIOUS LAWSUITS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Section E of the Complaint relating to previous lawsuits, and therefore deny the same. Defendants are without sufficient information to determine whether Plaintiff exhausted his available administrative remedies with respect to each of the remaining claims in this matter, and therefore deny this allegation.

5

Case 1:01-cv-01315-REB-CBS

Document 108

Filed 10/19/2006

Page 6 of 9

F. PREVIOUSLY DISMISSED ACTIONS OR APPEALS Defendants admit that Plaintiff is not in imminent danger of serious physical injury. The remainder of this section of the Complaint is not completed, and as a result no response is required. G. REQUEST FOR RELIEF Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in the Complaint. GENERAL DENIAL Defendants deny each and every allegation found in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint that is not specifically admitted herein. DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim against the Defendants upon

which relief can be granted. 2. Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought in the Complaint under any of the

theories asserted. 3. Plaintiff's claim does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation,

sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 4. Defendants' actions were taken for legitimate, nondiscriminatory

penological purposes and were reasonable under the circumstances. 5. At all times pertinent herein, Defendants acted in good faith and in

accordance with all common law, statutory, regulatory, policy, and constitutional obligations and without any intent to cause Plaintiff any harm.

6

Case 1:01-cv-01315-REB-CBS

Document 108

Filed 10/19/2006

Page 7 of 9

6.

Each of the individual Defendants followed the regulations and procedures

of the Colorado Department of Corrections and the State of Colorado in connection with any contact with Plaintiff. 7. Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any, in whole or in part, were

proximately caused by his own acts or omissions and/or the acts or omissions of third parties over whom the Defendants have no control or right of control. 8. Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any, in whole or in part, were either pre-

existing or not aggravated by any action or omission of or by Defendants, nor were they proximately caused by or related to any act or omission of Defendants. 9. Defendants in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity

for all Plaintiff's claims of constitutional violations. 10. Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, due to a failure of personal

participation on the part of the Defendants. 11. Defendants may not be held liable on the basis of any vicarious liability or

respondeat superior theory for any alleged violation of the United States Constitution. 12. Some or all of Plaintiff's claims may be barred or limited by the Prison

Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. §1997e. 13. Some or all of Plaintiff's claims may be barred or limited by the doctrine of

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). 14. Defendants specifically reserve the right to amend their Answer to include

additional defenses and affirmative defenses and/or delete defenses and affirmative defenses which have become non-applicable upon completion of discovery.

7

Case 1:01-cv-01315-REB-CBS

Document 108

Filed 10/19/2006

Page 8 of 9

Dated this 19th day of October, 2006. Respectfully submitted,

s/ Gillian Dale Andrew D. Ringel, Esq. Gillian Dale, Esq. Hall & Evans, L.L.C. 1125 17th Street, Suite 600 Denver, CO 80202-2052 Phone: (303) 628-3300 Fax: (303) 293-3238 [email protected] [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS JOHN HYATT, ROBERT FAHEY, BETTY FULTON, PAUL CARRERAS, CONNIE DAVIS, KEN MAESTAS, JOSEPH GARCIA, AND DAVID ARCHLETA

8

Case 1:01-cv-01315-REB-CBS

Document 108

Filed 10/19/2006

Page 9 of 9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF) I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 19th day of October, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses: None and hereby certify that I have mailed or served the document or paper to the following non-CM/ECF participant in the manner (mail, hand delivery, etc.) indicated by the non-participant's name: Leonard Baldauf, #98415 Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility P.O. Box 1000 Crowley, CO 81034

s/ Denise Gutierrez, Secretary Gillian Dale, Esq. Hall & Evans, L.L.C. 1125 17th Street, Suite 600 Denver, Colorado 80202-2052 Phone: 303-628-3300 Fax: 303-293-3238 [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

9