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 CATHERINE M. BOHLAND, Bar No. 022124 Assistant Attorney General 1275 W. Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997 Phone: (602) 542-4951 Fax: (602) 542-7670 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ARMANDO ROBERTO AROS III, Plaintiff, v. ROBINSON, et al., Defendants. Defendants1 by and through their undersigned counsel, in answer to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (Count IV), admit, deny and allege as follows: 1. Admit that Plaintiff is an inmate confined in the custody of the Arizona No: CV04-306 PHX SRB (LOA) ANSWER

Department of Corrections ("ADC"). 2. Admit that Defendants are current or former employees of the State of

Arizona and specifically the ADC. Defendants further admit that at all times relevant to the Third Amended Complaint, Defendants acted solely in their official capacity. 3. 4. Admit that personal jurisdiction is proper in this Court. Admit that venue is proper.

1

Schaulin, Duarte, and Schriro. Document 31 Filed 12/01/2005 Page 1 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00306-SRB

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

5.

Deny that Plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated by Defendants,

including Plaintiff's rights under the Eighth Amendment. 6. Deny that Plaintiff's rights pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, any federal

statute, Arizona State law or Arizona Department of Corrections rule or regulation were violated by Defendants. 7. 8. Deny that Defendants failed to perform any duty required by law. Deny that Plaintiff can receive punitive damages because Plaintiff cannot

show evil intent or motive. 9. Affirmatively allege that Plaintiff has failed to state any claim upon which

relief can be granted. 10. Affirmatively allege that at all times relevant to Plaintiff's Third Amended

Complaint, Defendants acted in good faith, and did not violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, hereby affirmatively raising the defense of qualified immunity. 11. Affirmatively allege that Plaintiff sustained no physical injury as a result of

Defendants' action or inaction. 12. Affirmatively allege that Defendants, at all times alleged herein, acted

professionally and pursuant to legitimate penological interest and in compliance with all constitutional amendments. 13. Affirmatively allege that Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint fails, as a

matter of law, to allege sufficient affirmative involvement of the Defendants. 14. Affirmatively allege that the theory of respondeat superior is insufficient to

support Plaintiff's Complaint. 15. denied. Deny each and every allegation not otherwise specifically admitted or

Case 2:04-cv-00306-SRB

Document 31

2

Filed 12/01/2005

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

16.

Affirmatively allege that Plaintiff failed to exhaust prison administrative

remedies as are available; and therefore, his claims are barred by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) whether denominated as an affirmative defense, subject matter jurisdiction, quasijurisdictional, abatement or a condition precedent. 17. Affirmatively allege that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) of 1996,

42 U.S.C. § 1997e (e) precludes Plaintiff from seeking damages for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury, for a cause of action based upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18. Affirmatively allege that if Plaintiff owes restitution to the victims as a result

of his criminal conviction, any monetary award made to Plaintiff is subject to set-off pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act §§ 807 & 808. 19. Affirmatively allege that Plaintiff's claim, to the extent that he alleges state

law negligence, is precluded by A.R.S. 31-201.01(L). 20. Allege laches, waiver, mootness, immunity, ripeness, justiciability, standing,

estoppel, collateral estoppel, claim or issue preclusion or res judicata, Eleventh Amendment immunity, qualified immunity and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense. WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for the following relief: 1. 2. Dismissal of the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice. Entry of judgment in favor of Defendants, and that Plaintiff take

nothing as a result thereof, including declaratory relief, injunctive relief, punitive, nominal, special or compensatory damages, and damages for mental suffering and anguish. /// /// /// ///

Case 2:04-cv-00306-SRB

Document 31

3

Filed 12/01/2005

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
Amr/936270

3.

Grant Defendants their reasonable costs and expenses of this action,

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

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 1st day of December, 2005. TERRY GODDARD Attorney General

Original and one copy filed this 1st day of December, 2005, with: Clerk of the Court United States District Court 401 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Copy mailed the same date to: Armando R. Aros III #95001 ASPC ­ Florence/Central Unit P.O. Box 8200 Florence, AZ 85232 Plaintiff Pro Se s/Angela Palumbo Legal Secretary to Catherine M. Bohland IDS05-0367/RM#___________

s/Catherine M. Bohland Catherine M. Bohland Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:04-cv-00306-SRB

Document 31

4

Filed 12/01/2005

Page 4 of 4