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

John T. Masterson, 007447 JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. Suite 800 2901 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85012 602-263-1700 Attorneys for Defendants Tanya (Williams) Gant, Joseph Ortega and Rebecca L. Spurlock UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Jay Jeffers, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Officer Ortega; Corporal Williams; Officer Spurlock; and Doctor Lizarrage, Defendants. Defendants Tanya (W illiams) Gant, Joseph Ortega and Rebecca L. Spurlock, by their attorneys, Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, for their Answer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, admit, deny, and allege as follows. 1. Complaint. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 2. As a separate defense, and in the alternative, Defendants Defendants deny all allegations of Plaintiff's First Amended NO. CV'04 0572-PHX-MHM (MS) ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

allege that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against them. 3. As a separate defense, and in the alternative, Defendants

allege that no constitutional rights of Plaintiff were violated by Defendants.

Case 2:04-cv-00572-MHM-LOA

Document 49

Filed 08/01/2005

Page 1 of 3

4.

As a separate defense, and in the alternative, Defendants

allege that they did not breach any duty to Plaintiff or proximately cause any injuries or damages to him. 5. As a separate defense, and in the alternative, Defendants

allege that the actions of Pinal County and its officers and employees were objectively reasonable under the circumstances then existing. 6. As a separate defense, and in the alternative, Defendants

allege that they are entitled to all privileges and immunities extended to governmental entities and employees under Federal and State law, including qualified immunity under Hunter v. Bryant, 112 S.Ct. 534 (1991). 7. As a separate defense, and in the alternative, Defendants

allege that they did not act with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's constitutional rights. 8. Defendants put Plaintiff on notice that further affirmative

defenses may be added in an amended answer after discovery. These defenses may include any defense set forth in Rule 8(d) and or Rule 12(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or as otherwise allowed by law. W HEREFORE, having fully answered Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, Defendants pray that the same be dismissed and that they be granted judgm ent along with their costs incurred. DATED this 1 day of August, 2005. JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. By_____s/_______________________ John T. Masterson 2901 North Central Avenue, #800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorneys for Defendants Gant, Ortega & Spurlock 2 Case 2:04-cv-00572-MHM-LOA Document 49 Filed 08/01/2005 Page 2 of 3

ORIGINAL and ONE COPY of the foregoing filed this 1st day of August, 2005, with: Clerk of the United States District Court Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse 401 W est Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2158 COPY mailed this same date to: Jay Jeffers P.O. Box 205 Coolidge, Arizona 85228 Pro Per

______s/_________________________ John T. Masterson

1508738_1

3 Document 49 Filed 08/01/2005 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00572-MHM-LOA