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

1 2 3 4 5

Daniel P. Struck, Bar #012377 Timothy J. Bojanowski, Bar #022126 JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Tel: (602) 263-7324 Fax: (602) 200-7837 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Garcia and Miles

6 7 8 9 Carlos Arthur Powell 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Defendants, Cora Miles, Joe Gluch, Stella Ponce, v. F. Garcia, et al. DEFENDANTS CORA MILES, JOE GLUCH, STELLA PONCE SEFERINO TELAMANTES AND TIMOTHY CASON'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CIV 03-1819 PHX-JAT (LOA) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Seferino Talamantes, and Timothy Cason, for their Answer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Com plaint, admit, deny, and allege as follows: I. These answering Defendants deny each and every allegation of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint which is not specifically admitted, denied or otherwise plead to. II. COUNT I Defendants deny the allegations contained in Count I of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.

Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT

Document 156

Filed 01/11/2006

Page 1 of 5

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

III. COUNT II Defendants deny the allegations contained in Count II of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. IV. COUNT III Defendants deny the allegations contained in Count III of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES V. As a separate defense, or in the alternative, Defendants allege that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. VI. As a separate defense, or in the alternative, Defendants allege that Plaintiff did not suffer any actual injury as a result of any actions by Defendants, thereby warranting dismissal of this lawsuit. VII. As a separate defense, or in the alternative, Defendants allege that they were acting in good faith, thereby warranting dismissal of this lawsuit. VIII. As a separate defense, or in the alternative, Defendants allege that Plaintiff's allegations arose as a result of his own negligence or intentional conduct, not the acts or omissions of Defendant , thereby warranting dismissal of this lawsuit. /// /// 2

Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT

Document 156

Filed 01/11/2006

Page 2 of 5

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

IX. As a separate defense, or in the alternative, Defendants allege that Plaintiff was contributorily negligent, thereby reducing or eliminating damages owed by Defendants. X. As a separate defense, or in the alternative, Defendants alleges that someone other than Defendants is responsible for Plaintiff's injuries, thereby reducing or eliminating damages owed by Defendants. XI. As a separate defense, or in the alternative, Defendants allege that Plaintiff has failed to set forth a grave deprivation in regard to his allegation that a Constitutional violation has occurred, thereby warranting dism issal of this lawsuit. XII. As a separate defense, and in the alternative, Defendants allege that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations. XIII. As a separate defense, and in the alternative, Defendants allege that the Plaintiff is unable to show the requisite intent required in order to state a claim for deliberate indifference, thereby requiring dismissal of this action. XIV. Although Defendants do not presently have facts in support of the following defenses, Defendants wish to assert the following defenses should subsequent discovery reveal these defenses are appropriate. Specifically, the following affirmative defenses set forth in Rule 8(c), F.R.C.P. and Rule 12, including but not limited to arbitration and award, assumption of risk, 3

Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT

Document 156

Filed 01/11/2006

Page 3 of 5

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

contributory negligence, duress, estoppel, fraud, illegality, laches, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, waiver, insufficiency of process and insufficiency or service of process. W HEREFORE, having fully answered Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, Defendants request that they be dismissed, and that Defendants be awarded costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Defendants dem and a jury trial as to all triable issues. DATED this 11th day of January 2006. J ONES, S KELTON & H OCHULI, P.L.C.

By s/Timothy J. Bojanowski Daniel P. Struck Timothy J. Bojanowski 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 200 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorneys for Defendants Cora Miles, Joe Gluch, Stella Ponce, Seferino Talamantes, and Timothy Cason ORIGINAL of the foregoing electronically filed this 11 th day of January 2006, with the Richard W eare, Clerk U NITED S TATES D ISTRICT C OURT COPY of the foregoing mailed this 11 th day of January 2006, to: The Honorable James A. Teilborg U NITED S TATES D ISTRICT C OURT Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 523 401 W est Washington, SPC 51 Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2154 /// /// 4

Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT

Document 156

Filed 01/11/2006

Page 4 of 5

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
1575889_1

Carlos Powell, #10090-023 D/U 325 FCI-1 V ICTORVILLE P. O. Box 5300 Adelanto, California 92301-5300 Plaintiff Pro Se COPY of the foregoing faxed this 11 th day January 2006, to: Office of the Pro Se Staff Attorney 602-322-7289

s/Dianne Clark

5 Document 156 Filed 01/11/2006 Page 5 of 5

Case 2:03-cv-01819-JAT