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

Case 1:04-cv-00219-GMS

Document 35

Filed 11/14/2006

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE DONIAL FAYSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ) BERNITA EARLE and PATRICK RYAN, ) ) Defendants. )

C.A. No. 04-219-KAJ Jury Trial Requested

DEFENDANTS BERNITA EARLE AND PATRICK RYAN'S ANSWER TO THE FIRST AND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTS [RE: D.I. 12 AND 13] COMES NOW, State Defendants Bernita Earle and Patrick Ryan (the "Defendants")1 by and through their undersigned counsel, and hereby respond to the unnumbered claims and allegations remaining from Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (D.I. 12) and Second Amended Complaint (D.I. 13) (together the "Amended Complaints") as follows: ANSWER TO REMAINING CLAIMS On November 7, 2006, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and an Order granting the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to all of Plaintiff's claims except Plaintiff's Halal diet claims (D.I. 33 and 34, respectively). Defendants' response to Plaintiff's remaining Halal diet claims. This is

Paul Howard was dismissed from the case by the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 2006 (D.I. 33).

1

Case 1:04-cv-00219-GMS

Document 35

Filed 11/14/2006

Page 2 of 6

A.

Halal Diet claims pursuant to RLUIPA The allegations of Plaintiff's Amended Complaints regarding her right to

receive a Halal diet pursuant to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc ("RLUIPA") are denied. By way of further response, Defendants specifically deny that they violated Plaintiff's rights or committed any wrongdoing under RLUIPA. B. Halal Diet claims pursuant to the First Amendment The allegations of Plaintiff's Amended Complaints regarding her right to receive a Halal diet pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution are denied. By way of further response, Defendants specifically deny that they violated Plaintiff's First Amendment rights or committed any wrongdoing. C. Halal Diet claims pursuant to the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment The allegations of Plaintiff's Amended Complaints regarding her right to receive a Halal diet pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution are denied. By way of further response, Defendants specifically deny that they violated Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights or committed any wrongdoing.

In addition to the foregoing, Defendants deny each and every allegation remaining from Plaintiff's Amended Complaints not specifically admitted herein. By way of further response, Defendants specifically deny that they violated Plaintiff's Constitutional rights or committed any wrongdoing.

-2-

Case 1:04-cv-00219-GMS

Document 35

Filed 11/14/2006

Page 3 of 6

RELIEF Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages, nominal damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief or any other requested relief. DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. may be granted. 2. immunity. 3. As to any claims against the State or against Defendants in their The action and all claims are barred by Eleventh Amendment The Amended Complaints fail to state claims upon which relief

official capacities, Defendants and the State are protected from liability by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. 4. Defendants, in their official capacities, are not liable for alleged

violations of Plaintiff's constitutional rights as they are not "persons" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 5. Officials and employees of the State of Delaware, including the

Defendants, acting in good faith, within the scope of their employment and without knowingly violating well established federal rights, are entitled to qualified immunity and cannot be held liable in this action. 6. As to any claims sounding in state law, Defendants are immune

from liability under the State Tort Claims Act, 10 Del. C. §4001, et seq. 7. To the extent the Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants liable based on

supervisory responsibilities, the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior or vicarious liability is not a basis for liability in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

-3-

Case 1:04-cv-00219-GMS

Document 35

Filed 11/14/2006

Page 4 of 6

8.

This action and all claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the

applicable statute of limitations or any other statutorily required administrative time requirement. 9. Plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies,

including but not limited to, remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997a(e). 10. Defendants cannot be held liable in the absence of personal

involvement for alleged constitutional deprivations. 11. 12. Plaintiff's claims are barred by her contributory negligence. To the extent Plaintiff's claims sound in negligence, Plaintiff

cannot state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 13. Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendants for failure to train

or for maintenance of wrongful customs, practices and policies. 14. RLUIPA. 15. the First Amendment. 16. Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendants for violation of Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendants for violation of Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendants for violation of

the Fourteenth Amendment. 17. Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any, resulted from an

intervening and superseding cause. 18. injuries, if any. 19. Insufficiency of service of process. Plaintiff's own conduct proximately caused and/or exacerbated her

-4-

Case 1:04-cv-00219-GMS

Document 35

Filed 11/14/2006

Page 5 of 6

20. 21.

Insufficiency of process. Lack of jurisdiction over the person and subject matter.

WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request the Court grant judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiff in all respects, and enter an Order (i) dismissing the Amended Complaints in their entirety as to the Defendants; (ii) awarding Defendants their fees and costs; and (iii) granting such other and further relief as is just and proper. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STATE OF DELAWARE /s/ Erika Y. Tross Erika Y. Tross (#4506) Deputy Attorney General 820 N. French Street Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 577-8400 Attorney for the Defendants

Dated: November 14, 2006

-5-

Case 1:04-cv-00219-GMS

Document 35

Filed 11/14/2006

Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Erika Y. Tross, Esq., hereby certify that on November 14, 2006, I caused a true and correct copy of the attached Defendants Bernita Earle And Patrick Ryan's Answer To The First And Second Amended Complaints [Re: D.I. 12 And 13] to be served on the following individual in the form and manner indicated: NAME AND ADDRESS OF RECIPIENT(S): Donial Fayson SBI #463713 Baylor Women's Correctional Institution 660 Baylor Boulevard New Castle, DE 19720 MANNER OF DELIVERY: One true copy by facsimile transmission to each recipient Two true copies by first class mail, postage prepaid, to each recipient Two true copies by Federal Express Two true copies by hand delivery to each recipient

/s/ Erika Y. Tross Erika Y. Tross (#4506) Deputy Attorney General Delaware Department of Justice Carvel State Office Building 820 N. French Street, 6th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 302-577-8400