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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Terry Goddard Attorney General Colleen M. Auer Assistant Attorney General State Bar No. 014637 1275 W. Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997 Telephone: (602) 542-7698 Fax: (602) 542-7670 Attorneys For Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Paul Eugene Rhodes, No: CV04-0644-PHX-JAT (MS) Plaintiff, v. Quirino Valeros, et al., Defendants. Defendants,1 by and through undersigned counsel, answer Count I of Rhodes' First Amended Complaint and admit, deny and allege as follows: 1. 2. 3. Admit that personal jurisdiction is proper in this Court. Admit that venue is proper. Admit that Rhodes is an inmate confined in the custody of the Arizona ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS BUFFINGTON, STRUBECK, GREELEY, KUMAR AND LESAC TO COUNT I OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Department of Corrections ("ADC."). ///
1

Terry Allred, Gary Pinkstaff, Richard Pratt, Bruce Shiflett and David Rivas answered Count I of the First Amended Complaint on July 1, 2005. Newly-added and served defendants Susan Buffington, Vern Strubeck, FHA Greeley, Kim Kumar, Michael Lesac now answer Count I of the First Amended Complaint. Dennis Chenail was dismissed from the action without prejudice. 6/14/05 Order at 6.
Case 2:04-cv-00644-JAT-LOA Document 37 Filed 08/30/2005 Page 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 care.

4.

Admit that Defendants are current or former employees of the State of

Arizona and specifically the ADC. Admit that at all times relevant to the Complaint, Defendants acted solely in their official capacities. 5. Deny that Defendants violated Rhodes' Constitutional rights under the

Eighth Amendment. 6. Deny that Defendants violated Rhodes' rights under the U.S. Constitution,

any federal statute, Arizona State Law or Arizona Department of Corrections rule or regulation. 7. 8. 9. be granted. 10. Affirmatively allege that at all times relevant to the Complaint ("all relevant Deny that Defendants failed to perform any duty required by law. Deny each and every allegation not specifically admitted. Affirmatively allege that Rhodes fails to state a claim upon which relief can

times") Defendants acted in their official capacities and therefore possess absolute immunity from suit. 11. Affirmatively allege that at all relevant times, Defendants acted in good faith

and did not violate any Constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known; they therefore possess qualified immunity from suit. 12. Affirmatively allege that Rhodes sustained no physical injury as a result of

Defendants' action or inaction. 13. Affirmatively allege that Rhodes was provided with appropriate medical

14.

Affirmatively allege that Defendants were not deliberately indifferent to a

serious medical need.

Case 2:04-cv-00644-JAT-LOA

Document 37

2

Filed 08/30/2005

Page 2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

15.

Affirmatively allege that, at all relevant times, Defendants acted

professionally and in accordance with legitimate penological interests, the Constitution, applicable laws, rules, regulations and procedures. 16. Affirmatively allege that Rhodes fails, as a matter of law, to allege sufficient

affirmative involvement by Defendants. 17. Affirmatively allege that the theory of respondent superior does not apply to

Rhodes' claims. 18. Affirmatively allege that Rhodes failed to exhaust available prison

administrative remedies and, therefore, his claims are barred by 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a) whether regarded as an affirmative defense, subject matter jurisdiction, quasi-jurisdictional or a condition precedent to suit. 19. Affirmatively allege that 42 U.S.C. §1997e (e) precludes Rhodes from

seeking damages for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury for claims brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983. 20. Affirmatively allege that any monetary award made to Rhodes is subject to

set-off pursuant to the PLRA §§ 807 & 808 to the extent he owes restitution to the victims of his crime(s). 21. Affirmatively allege that Rhodes is not entitled to injunctive relief or

damages against Defendants. 22. Defendants do not know which, if any, additional affirmative defenses may

be supported by the facts developed through discovery. Thus, Defendants allege, as though fully set forth herein, all affirmative defenses listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense. WHEREFORE, Defendants seek the following relief: 1. Dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice.

Case 2:04-cv-00644-JAT-LOA

Document 37

3

Filed 08/30/2005

Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

2.

Entry of judgment in favor of Defendants and against Rhodes on his

Complaint and requests for injunctive relief and damages. 3. Award of Defendants' reasonable costs and expenses of this action,

including attorney's fees. 4. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 30th day of August, 2005. Terry Goddard Attorney General

s/ Colleen M. Auer Colleen M. Auer Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants Copy mailed this 30th day of August 2005 to: Paul Eugene Rhodes, #163870 ASPC-Florence-Central Post Office Box 8200 Florence AZ 85232

s/ Colleen M. Auer_____________ Colleen M. Auer IDS05-00164/RSK:G
#921683

Case 2:04-cv-00644-JAT-LOA

Document 37

4

Filed 08/30/2005

Page 4 of 4