Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01422-GMS

Document 21

Filed 03/15/2005

Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE JEROME K. HAMILTON, a.k.a., CHEIKH AHMED ELOHIM, Plainitff, v. CATHY L. GUESSFORD, REBECCA MCBRIDE, ROBERT F. SNYDER, THOMAS L. CARROLL, and STANLEY W. TAYLOR, Jr. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 04-1422-GMS

DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT COME NOW the Defendants Cathy L. Guessford, Rebecca L. McBride, Robert F. Snyder, Thomas L. Carroll, and Stanley W. Taylor, by and through the undersigned counsel, and hereby answer the Complaint as follows: The Parties 1. 2. Admitted. Admitted that Defendant Cathy Guessford was formerly the records

supervisor at the Delaware Correctional Center. 3. 4. 5. 6. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted.

Case 1:04-cv-01422-GMS

Document 21

Filed 03/15/2005

Page 2 of 10

Jurisdiction and Venue 7. required. 8. 9. Admitted. Denied. This paragraph states a legal argument/conclusion to which no response is

Statement of Facts 10. Admitted as to the first and second sentences of this paragraph. The third

sentence states a legal argument/conclusion to which no response is required. 11. 12. 13. Admitted. Admitted. Denied, except that it is admitted that in 1987 Hamilton was sentenced to

7 years for conspiracy second and two years for promotion of prison contraband. 14. Admitted that in 1988 Judge Martin reduced the sentence for 0906 to

twenty-five years. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph. 15. This paragraph states a legal argument/conclusion to which no response is

required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations set forth in this paragraph are denied. 16. Denied, except that it is admitted that in 1988 DOC calculated Hamilton's

short-time release date as July 17, 1999. 17. 18. 19. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted.

2

Case 1:04-cv-01422-GMS

Document 21

Filed 03/15/2005

Page 3 of 10

20.

Denied, except that it is admitted that in 1996 Hamilton's short-time

release date was recalculated. 21. Denied, except that it is admitted that in 1996 Hamilton's short-time

release date was recalculated as June 11, 2004. 22. Denied, except that it is admitted that the March 21, 1996 status sheet

stated Hamilton's short-time release date as June 11, 2004. 23. 24. 25. Denied. Denied that a grievance was filed in May 1999. Denied, except that it is admitted that Hamilton filed a grievance on

December 2, 1999. 26. Defendants are currently without sufficient information to admit or deny

the allegations set forth in this paragraph. 27. Objection on the grounds that this paragraph requests information

protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. 28. Denied, except that it is admitted that McBride's March 22, 2000

memorandum stated that the June 11, 2004 release date was correct. 29. 30. 31. Denied. Admitted. Defendants are currently without sufficient information to admit or deny

the allegations set forth in this paragraph. 32. Defendants are currently without sufficient information to admit or deny

the allegations set forth in this paragraph.

3

Case 1:04-cv-01422-GMS

Document 21

Filed 03/15/2005

Page 4 of 10

33. 34.

Admitted. Denied, except that it is admitted that in opposing Hamilton's petition for

writ of habeas corpus, respondents submitted the affidavit of Rebecca McBride stating Hamilton's release date as June 11, 2004. 35. 36. Admitted. Denied, except that it is admitted that Hamilton submitted a reply affidavit

after the court's June 27, 2000 decision denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. 37. Denied, except that it is admitted that the court denied Hamilton's June

2000 petition for writ of habeas corpus on June 27, 2000, and the court denied Hamilton's July 13, 2000 and July 27, 2000 petitions for writ of habeas corpus on August 2, 2000, and Hamilton appealed said denial to the Supreme Court. 38. 39. 40. Admitted. See answer to paragraph number 37. Defendants are currently without sufficient information to admit or deny

the allegations set forth in this paragraph. 41. Defendants are currently without sufficient information to admit or deny

the allegations set forth in this paragraph. 42. 43. Denied. Admitted that in April 2001 the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of

Hamilton's petitions of writ of habeas corpus. The remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph state legal arguments/conclusions to which no response is required. 44. Defendants are currently without sufficient information to admit or deny

the allegations set forth in this paragraph.

4

Case 1:04-cv-01422-GMS

Document 21

Filed 03/15/2005

Page 5 of 10

45.

Defendants are currently without sufficient information to admit or deny

the allegations set forth in this paragraph. 46. Defendants are currently without sufficient information to admit or deny

the allegations set forth in this paragraph. 47. Defendants are currently without sufficient information to admit or deny

the allegations set forth in this paragraph. 48. Denied, except that it is admitted that on June 29, 2002 Hamilton filed a

petition for post-conviction relief, which was denied on September 23, 2002. 49. Admitted that on January 28, 2003 the Supreme Court remanded the case

to the Superior Court. The remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph state legal arguments/conclusions to which no response is required. 50. 51. Admitted. Denied, except that it is admitted that Hamilton filed a petition for writ of

habeas corpus on April 4, 2003. 52. Denied as to the first sentence. The second sentence states a legal

argument/conclusion to which no response is required. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Denied. This paragraph states legal arguments/conclusions to which no response is

required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations set forth in this paragraph are denied.

5

Case 1:04-cv-01422-GMS

Document 21

Filed 03/15/2005

Page 6 of 10

58. 59. 3, 2003. 60. 61. Count I 62.

Admitted. Denied, except that it is admitted that Hamilton was released on October

Denied. Denied.

Defendants incorporate herein by reference their responses to paragraphs 1

­ 61 of the Complaint. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. Count II 70. Defendants incorporate herein by reference their responses to paragraphs 1 Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied.

­ 69 of the Complaint. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied.

6

Case 1:04-cv-01422-GMS

Document 21

Filed 03/15/2005

Page 7 of 10

76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. Count III 83.

Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied.

Defendants incorporate herein by reference their responses to paragraphs 1

­ 82 of the Complaint. 84. 85. 86. 87. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. RELIEF 1. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages

or punitive damages. 2. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory, injunctive

or any other relief. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 3. 4. 5. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Defendants are immune from liability under the Eleventh

7

Case 1:04-cv-01422-GMS

Document 21

Filed 03/15/2005

Page 8 of 10

Amendment. 6. 7. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. As to any claims under state law, Defendants are entitled to immunity

under the State Tort Claims Act, 10 Del. C. § 4001 et seq. 8. As to any claims under state law, Defendants are entitled to sovereign

immunity in their official capacities. 9. Defendants cannot be held liable in the absence of personal involvement

for the alleged constitutional deprivations. 10. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants 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. 11. Defendants, in their official capacities, are not liable for alleged violations

of Plaintiff's constitutional rights as they are not "persons" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 12. 13. 14. Insufficiency of service of process. Insufficiency of process. Lack of jurisdiction over the person and subject matter.

8

Case 1:04-cv-01422-GMS

Document 21

Filed 03/15/2005

Page 9 of 10

WHEREFORE, the Defendants respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor and against Plaintiff as to all claims and that attorney fees be awarded to the Defendants. STATE OF DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE /s/ Eileen Kelly Eileen Kelly, I.D. #2884 Deputy Attorney General Carvel State Office Building 820 North French Street, 6th Floor Wilmington, Delaware 19801 [email protected] (302) 577-8400 Attorney for Defendants

Date: March 15, 2005

9

Case 1:04-cv-01422-GMS

Document 21

Filed 03/15/2005

Page 10 of 10

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING AND/OR DELIVERY
The undersigned certifies that on March 15, 2005, she caused the attached Defendants' Answer to the Complaint to be delivered to the following persons in the form and manner indicated: NAME AND ADDRESS OF RECIPIENT(S): Jerome K. Hamilton 320 East 5th St., Apt. 609 Wilmington, DE 19801 MANNER OF DELIVERY: One true copy by facsimile transmission to each recipient X Two true copies by first class mail, postage prepaid, to each recipient Two true copies by Federal Express Two true copies by hand delivery to each recipient /s/ Eileen Kelly Eileen Kelly, I.D. #2884 Deputy Attorney General Carvel State Office Building 820 North French Street, 6th Floor Wilmington, Delaware 19801 [email protected] (302) 577-8400 Attorney for Defendants

10