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 Assistant Attorney General State Bar No. 022124 1275 W. Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997 Phone: (602) 542-7690 Fax: (602) 542-7670 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Mark E. Hampton, Plaintiff, v. Charles Ryan, et al., Defendants. Defendants1 by and through undersigned counsel, in answer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint [Dkt. 49], admit, deny and allege as follows2: I. 1. 2. Facts Admit Paragraph 1. Admit Paragraph 2 that Charles Ryan was the Acting Director of the ADC No: CV03-1706-PHX-NVW (VAM) DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

from December 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003. Admit Paragraph 2 that Charles Ryan, as acting Director of the ADC, acted solely in his official capacity. Admit Paragraph 2 that Dora Schriro is the current Director of the ADC.

1

Charles Ryan, Conrad Luna and Barbara Shearer.

Pursuant to the Court's Order dated September 30, 2005 [Dkt. 48], the current Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, Dora Schriro, is not a party to this lawsuit. Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW Document 52 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 1 of 7

2

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 10. 8.

3.

Admit Paragraph 3 that Conrad Luna was at various times the Deputy

Warden of SMU II. Admit Paragraph 3 that Conrad Luna, at the times related to the First Amended Complaint acted solely in his official capacity 4. Admit Paragraph 4 that Barbara Shearer was at various times a Corrections

Officer III, employed by the State of Arizona and specifically the ADC. Admit Paragraph 4 that at various times Shearer was a Classification Officer within the Eyman Prison Complex. Admit Paragraph 3 that Barbara Shearer, at the times related to the First Amended Complaint acted solely in her official capacity. 5. 6. 7. Admit Paragraph 5. Admit Paragraph 6. Admit Paragraph 7 that Plaintiff is currently in the custody of the ADC

serving a sentence imposed by the Maricopa County Superior Court. Deny the remainder of Paragraph 7. 8. Without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny and therefore deny Paragraph

9. 10.

Deny Paragraph 9. Without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny and therefore deny Paragraph

11.

Admit Paragraph 11 that in 1995, the Director of ADC implemented

departmental policies so as to minimize the threat that inmate gang or gang like activity posed to the safe, secure and efficient operation of institutions, and thereby prohibited the creation, promotion or participation in gangs. Deny the remainder of Paragraph 11. 12. Admit Paragraph 12 that Plaintiff was validated as a Security Threat Group

("STG") member on October 19, 1998. Without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny and therefore deny the remainder of Paragraph 12.

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 52

2

Filed 10/13/2005

Page 2 of 7

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 23. II. 18. 17.

13.

Admit Paragraph 13 that Plaintiff was validated as a Security Threat Group

("STG") member on October 19, 1998, and is housed in a high security institution. Deny the remainder of Paragraph 13. 14. 15. Deny Paragraph 14. Admit Paragraph 15 that Plaintiff was transferred to SMU II in February,

1999. Deny the remainder of Paragraph 15. 16. 17. Deny Paragraph 16. Without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny and therefore deny Paragraph

18.

Without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny and therefore deny Paragraph

19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

Deny Paragraph 19. Deny Paragraph 20. Deny Paragraph 21. Deny Paragraph 22. Without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny and therefore deny Paragraph

Due Process 24. Deny Paragraph 25. Affirmatively alleges that Plaintiff was afforded all due

process protections as constitutionally required with regards to his validation hearing and subsequent re-classification. 25. Admit that Plaintiff was validated as an STG member and transferred to

SMU II. Deny the remainder of Paragraph 26. 26. 27. 28. Deny Paragraph 27. Deny Paragraph 28. Deny Paragraph 29.

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 52

3

Filed 10/13/2005

Page 3 of 7

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

29.

Deny Paragraph 30. Affirmatively alleges that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust

his administrative remedies and is thus, barred from raising his claims in federal court by 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a). III. Cruel and Unusual Punishment 30. 31. 32. 33. Deny Paragraph 32. Deny Paragraph 33. Deny Paragraph 34. Deny Paragraph 35. Affirmatively alleges that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust

his administrative remedies and is thus, barred from raising his claims in federal court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a). Defendants further: 1. 2. Deny violating Plaintiff's due process rights under the Constitution. Deny violating Plaintiff's constitutional rights under the Eighth, and

Fourteenth Amendments. 3. denied. 4. Deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing set forth in Plaintiff's Deny each and every allegation not otherwise specifically admitted or

Complaint, as well as any other allegations of wrongdoing which may be inferred from the contents of all portions of the Complaint. 5. 6. Deny failing to perform any duty required by law. Deny their actions or inactions injured Plaintiff.

Defendants affirmatively allege that: 1. Plaintiff sustained no actual or physical injury as a result of Defendants'

actions or inactions. 2. Plaintiff was provided with appropriate medical care and that Defendants

were not deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need.

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 52

4

Filed 10/13/2005

Page 4 of 7

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

3. standard. 4.

The medical care provided to Plaintiff was consistent with the community

At all relevant times, Defendants acted professionally and in accordance with

legitimate penological interests, the Constitution, applicable laws, rules, regulations and procedures. 5. 6. 7. ADC's STG policy is rationally related to legitimate penological interest. The theory of respondeat superior does not apply to Plaintiff's Complaint. Failure to exhaust, mootness, ripeness, justiciability, standing, arbitration and

award, assumption of the risk, contributory negligence, duress, estoppel, illegality, injury by fellow servant, laches, license, release, claim or issue preclusion or res judicata, statute of limitations, absolute, qualified and Eleventh Amendment immunity and waiver. 8. Defendants. 9. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) of 1996, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (e) Plaintiff is not entitled to declaratory relief or injunctive relief against

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. 10. Plaintiff owes restitution to the victims of his crimes; any monetary award

made to Plaintiff is subject to set-off pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act §§ 807 & 808. 11. Plaintiff's claim, to the extent that he alleges state law negligence, is

precluded by A.R.S. 31-201.01(L). 12. At the time of this Answer, Defendants do not know which, if any, additional

affirmative defenses may be supported by the facts developed through discovery. Accordingly, Defendants allege, as though set forth herein, all affirmative defenses listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 52

5

Filed 10/13/2005

Page 5 of 7

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

WHEREFORE, having fully answered Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendants pray that the Court enter an order: 1. 2. Dismissing Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in its entirety; 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. 3. Awarding Defendants sanctions, including costs and reasonable attorney's

fees incurred in the defense of this frivolous suit, pursuant to FRCP Rule 11; and 4. proper. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 13th day of October, 2005. TERRY GODDARD Attorney General Awarding Defendants any other and further relief the Court deems just and

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

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 52

6

Filed 10/13/2005

Page 6 of 7

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

Original e-filed this 13th day of October, 2005, with: Clerk of the Court United States District Court 401 West Washington Street, SPC 1 Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2118 Copy mailed the same date to: Robert L. Storrs Robert L. Storrs, P.C. 45 W. Jefferson, Suite 803 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2317 Attorney for Plaintiff

s/A. Palumbo Legal Secretary to Catherine M. Bohland IDS04-0363/RSK:GG04-20823
928151

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 52

7

Filed 10/13/2005

Page 7 of 7