Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv—O055&3=\{V IG Document 18 Filed 1 1/055003 Page 1 of 2
*1 1
· 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
C DISTRICT or CONNECTICUT
Joss ARZUAGA ; civn. No. S ;03cvss 1<) 1
V. I
CAPTAIN MAURICE BUTLER, ET AL. ; OCTOBER 3 1, zgaéff
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE
1. Paragraphs l and 2 are denied. _
2. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 are admitted. 1
3. Paragraph 6 is denied.
4. Paragraph 7 is admitted. g
5. Paragraph 8 is admitted insofar as it alleges defendant Armstrong was the Commissioner
of the Department of Correction and denied as to the present time.
6. Paragraph 9 is admitted insofar as it alleges Peter Matos was a Deputy Commissioner of
the Department of Correction and denied as to the present time. f
7. Paragraph 10 is admitted. I
8. To the extent paragraph ll alleges that the defendants were legally obligated to respect
the plaintiff S constitutional rights, such allegation is admitted. The remainder of Said paragraph
is denied.
9. Paragraph 12 is denied. \
10. So much of paragraph 13 which alleges the plaintiff covered the window of his cell with
toilet paper is admitted. The remainder of said paragraph is denied.
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1

1
1
1

Case 3:03-cv—OO55&)/VIG Document 18 Filed 11/O§L2003 Page 2 of 2 1
ll. So much of paragraph 14 which alleges that CERT is a unit specially trained, is admitted.
The remainder of said paragraph is denied.
12. So much of paragraph 15 which alleges Department of Correction employees responded
to plaintiffs cell and ordered the removal of the toilet paper is admitted. The remainder of said
paragraph is denied.
13. So much of paragraph 16 which alleges Lt. Oglesby sprayed Capstun is admitted. The
defendants have insufficient knowledge of the remaining allegations of said paragraph and, l
therefore leave the plaintiff to his burden of proof
14. Paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 are denied.
15. To the extent paragraph 20 alleges that inmates at times complain of unnecessary force,
such allegation is admitted. The remainder of said paragraph is denied.
16. Paragraphs 21 through 25 are denied.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The plaintiff has not fully exhausted his administrative remedies in regard to all claims in
this complaint.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
At all times mentioned in this lawsuit, the defendants acted within the scope of their
duties as officers/employees of the State of Connecticut and acted with a good faith belief that
their actions were lawful and, therefore, they are entitled to qualified immunity from monetary
damages.
2
______________;_ t