Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cv—00607-JJF Document 9 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT _
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
TONYA M. JENKINS, :
Plaintiff,
` : Civil Action No. 07-607-***
DAVID B. HUGHES and, :
DRUG ENFORCEMENT :
ADMINISTRATION :
Defendants. _
· ANSWER OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ‘
COMES NOW, defendant, United States ofA1nerica, by and through its attomeys, Cohn I
F. Connolly, United States Attorney for the District of Delaware, and Patricia C. Hannigan,
‘ Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Delaware, and answers plaintiff’s complaint
_ as follows:
l. This paragraph contains plaintiffs characterization of this action and conclusions E
of law, not avennents of fact to which an answer is required, but insofar as an answer may be
required, Denied.
2. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations in first sentence. Second sentence Admitted.
3. Admitted that Defendant Hughes produced a Maryland driver’s license, and
Denied that Hughes is a proper defendant.
4. Admitted, except to ·deny that the Drug Enforcement Administration is a proper i
defendant.

Case 1 :07-cv—00607-JJF Document 9 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 2 of 3
5. This paragraph contains plaintiff’ s characterization of this action and conclusions
of law, not averments of fact to which an answer is required, but insofar as an answer may be
required, Denied.
6. First sentence Admitted. Second sentence Denied.
7. Admitted.
S. First sentence Admitted. Second sentence Denied.
9. Denied.
l O. Denied. C
1 1. Denied.
12. Denied. ‘
l 3. Denied.
14. Defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs l through 13 of this Answer as if
they were set forth fully herein. I
15. Denied, eitcept to admit that Hughes was acting within the scope of his DEA
employment at the time of the accident.
Defendants hereby specifically deny all the allegations in the Complaint not hereinbefore
otherwise answered and aver that plaintiff is entitled to no relief
FIRST AFFIRNIATIVE DEFENSE
The named defendants enjoy absolute immunity and cannot be sued eo nomine under the
Federal tort Claims Act. The proper party defendant is the united States of America.
-2- i

Case 1 :07-cv—00607-JJF Document 9 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 3 of 3
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The damages alleged in the complaint were not proximately caused by a negligent or
wrongful act or omission of an employee of the United States.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
. The damages alleged in the complaint were proximately caused by a prior, intervening, or
sup erseding act of one other than an employee of the United States.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE I
In the event that the Court finds defendants negligent, which negligence defendants deny,
the negligence of plaintiff contributed to causing plaintiff’ s damages and any recovery must be
proportionately reduced.
_ WHEREFORE, having fully answered, the defendants pray that the Complaint be -
dismissed in its entirety, and that judgment be entered in favor of the defendants.
l Respectfully submitted, p
COLM F. CONNOLLY
‘ United States Attorney
By:/s/Patricia C. Hannigan
Patricia C. Hannigan
Assistant United States Attorney
Delaware Bar I.D. No. 2145
The Nemours Building
1007 Orange Street, Suite 700
P. O. Box 2046
Wilmington, DE 19899-2046
(302) 573-6277
Patricia.Hannigan@,usdoj.gov
Dated: December 7, 2007 _

Case 1:07-cv-00607-JJF

Document 9

Filed 12/07/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00607-JJF

Document 9

Filed 12/07/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00607-JJF

Document 9

Filed 12/07/2007

Page 3 of 3