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

__—_“% n;—_t___w;__ —»I ————lI——j—*—r "__——*m_—`I
~ Case 3:OO—cv-OO166C€5FD Document 30 Filed 12I17@2%O3 Page 1 of4
I M I I
I
I
I I
I
I I
UNITED STATES DISTRICI COURT »»»~=;*I I
DISTRICT OF CONNEC iICUT ....»»—»; I
I é€>‘:"T‘ Ll t"
RICHARD R. KNIGHT : I Ch? J TWI ,
Plaintiff : I Ԥf Ja jp
. I @ A I
vs. ; _AsE Ivo. at ‘§v1s€{cF¤)
: I is cf
MILLIE BELTON, SUSAN FRUMENTO & : I
CRYSTAL SHAH :
Defendants : ECEMBER 9, 003
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE EF NI ES
1. As to the allegations of Paragraph 1, he portion clf he paragraph that I
reads, "The plaintiff, Richard Knight, was arrested witIout· prdbable c use as a result of
the deliberate indifference of the defendants" is denieI:l. The Iremalin er of Paragraph 1
states a legal conclusion to which no response is requiIed.
2. Paragraph 2 states a legal conclusion to Ivhich no respo se is required.
I
3. As to the allegations of Paragraph the defencla ts lack sufficient
information upon which to enable an admission orIdenlaI,land th refore, leave the
plaintiffs to their proof. I
I
4. The portion of Paragraph 4 that reads, I"they are sued, however, only in I
I
their individual capacities," states a legal conclusion Io which no re ponse is required.
The remainder of the Paragraph 4 is admitted.
I
I
I
“ I
I
OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL - CIIY OF NE W HA VEN
I 65 Church Street, New Haven, CT l?Ii5I0 ~ I
Telephone (203) 946-7958 · Facsimile (203) 946· 79 2 · Juris N0. 42 71 5
- 2. ( ,..-..-.-...- rr., ..- .4.;.-.....- __ _
P P ** e To ra ·- ¥< é-e>. ;>o ;;_·;;_ ;, A; -. atgiiéiéf
-. .. .. ._ _, ,_ _, _ __ _ _r _ _r 7 ” """"""f"E’·”*·$5*·i·#¢?$f*»·??¤?=:¤§"§E.*$%%?:..»T%§=é*s=$:@§:s»+a5-s:<.$¤:»s-,ea-»»sp=,-;-; .e _ ____ 7 ` ” I ;f’_'F
_ V `‘·- _ I - I _ I .- I _- _` '

' ' Case 3:OO—cv-OO16%9FD Document 30 Filed 12`/17@903 Pagk 2 of 4 i
i , i
l l
5. As to the allegations of Paragraph 5, it isl admitted thatt e defendants were Q
l l
acting under color of law as that term has been defined in the Federal ourts. 2
6. As to the allegations of Paragraph the deferida ts lack sufficient I
information upon which to enable an admission orl denial, and tfmerefore, leave the
plaintiffs to their proof. ¤ {
7. As to the allegations of Paragraph the defendakts lack sufficient
information upon which to enable an admission orideniahand therefore, leave the
plaintiffs to their proof. E l I
8. As to the allegations of Paragraph the dlefenda ts lack sufficient I
information upon which to enable an admission or`denial,.and th@refore, leave the
plaintiffs to their proof. i
9-12. Paragraphs 9 through 12 are in all respe Its denied. i
13. The defendants admit receipt of said notle but deny its I gal sufficiency. i
l
l i l
l sv wm or AFnRMArivg dsrgivgs
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: l
At all relevant times, the defendants were gov+nment emplby es whose actions Q
were discretionary, and additionally, one or both of the following would apply:
~ l
i
l
i
i i
"”"E "’” "€"i§§’€f.5i1*§.T§§Z?’~5.?&’r2'f5,?2$$'li‘§§i»‘”""i”’”" '”E"" i
Teleplumz (203) 946-7958·Facsimile (203) 946-79- uhmfs No. 42715 , {


I I "‘""‘%‘
I _ ` Case 3:OO—cv-OO16fg:D Document 30 Filed 12I7@BO3 Page 3 of 4
I
. I
(a) the defendants' actions did not violate ani of the Iplaintiff’ clearly I
established rights under the constitution nd laws of the nited States;
(b) it was objectively reasonable for the date dents to believ that their actions I
were lawful. I
The defendants are entitled to qualified immuhit from suit fort e actions alleged. I
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: II I
The defendants assert their common law andl s atutory immI.InitIes from liability for
the actions alleged to have violated the laws of the StaIe of ConnecIIicl.It.
THIRD AFl=IRMA·nvE DEFENSE: I
. .... . . . . I . .
This court lacks jurisdiction over the plaIntIffs' Icl rms that the Constitution and laws
of the State of Connecticut were violated or, in the alte native, Ishould Ilecline to exercise I
jurisdiction over those claims. I I
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: I
The complaint fails to state a claim upon which r lief can be gIrarIIted.
I I
I I
I
I I ‘
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
""‘”"E"'”"£t§’3£Z?£‘§.T£.51”~€£'{l’Xf5.€;;‘I3'.III§5IF""’”“”"""""
Telephone (203) 946-7958 · Facsimile (203) 946-794 · Juris Na. 42 715 I
I I I I

Case 3:00-cv-00166-CFD Document 30 Filed 12I/17/2003 Page 4 of 4
I
THE DIFENDANTEI I I
I ‘ I
BY: I — _. FII I
Jon h n H. eamon
Assi t t Gorporaticln ounsel .
City of ew Hayen (
165 Church Street, 4t" Ioor ‘
NewIH ven, CT 06510
(206I 9 6-7666 (
Federa Bar No. ct2iE9 7
I E
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I
CERTIFICAT ON I I
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing W s mailed on pecember 9, 2003 to
the following counsel of record, to wit: ‘ I ’
John R. Williams, Esq. ‘ 3
Williams & Pattis, LLC . I I
51 Elm Street, Suite 409 _ _ I
New Haven, CT 06510 I I ·‘ I _ ___ __
I ` i I
J h n H_. B amoi
Assiata tCl:>rp;ratio ounsel
OFFICE OF THE CORPORA TION COUNSEL · CI Y OF IVE W HA VEAI
165 Church Street, New Haven, CIT0 5I0 = I
Telephone (203) 946-7958 • Facsimile (203) 946479 · Juifs No. 42715 I