THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION NO. 5:17-CT-3044-BO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Transcription

1 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION NO. 5:17-CT-3044-BO BRICE C. MOORE, Plaintiff, v. CARLTON JOYNER, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ANSWER COME NOW Defendants Carlton Joyner ( Defendant Joyner ), Stephen Waddell ( Defendant Waddell ), Monica Bond ( Defendant Bond ), Donnie Raynor ( Defendant Raynor ), George Solomon ( Defendant Solomon ), Brent Soucier ( Defendant Soucier ), Joshua Burkhart ( Defendant Burkhart ), Rodney Coffin ( Defendant Coffin ), Darletter Dawkins ( Defendant Dawkins ), Lisa Emory ( Defendant Emory ), Lashaun Branch ( Defendant Branch ), Kesha Jones ( Defendant Jones ), Cortney Rice ( Defendant Rice ), Ijeoma Sonny- Echendu ( Defendant Sonny-Echendu ), Peter Zadori ( Defendant Zadori ), and Joshua Panter ( Defendant Panter ) (collectively, Answering Defendants ), through counsel, North Carolina Attorney General Joshua H. Stein and Special Deputy Attorney General Joseph Finarelli, and answer the Amended Complaint (D.E. 26) of Plaintiff as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. It is admitted that this Court has jurisdiction over claims brought for alleged violations of constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C and Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. Case 5:17-ct BO Document 37 Filed 05/25/18 Page 1 of 26

2 2. It is admitted that this Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over certain state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 3. Admitted. PARTIES 4. Admitted. 5. It is admitted that Defendants Joyner, Waddell, Soucier, Burkhart, Zodori, Dawkins, Rice, Coffin, Panter, Jones, Sonny-Echendu, Branch, and Emory are employed or were previously employed at Central Prison located at 1300 Western Boulevard in Raleigh, North Carolina. It is further admitted that Defendants Solomon, Bond, and Raynor are employed or were employed by the North Carolina Department of Public Safety. It is further admitted that, in the performance of their respective duties on behalf of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Answering Defendants acted under color of state law. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 6. It is admitted that Defendant Joyner previously served as the Warden of Central Prison. It is further admitted that, in his capacity as Warden, Defendant Joyner oversaw the operations of the facility. It is further admitted that Plaintiff purports to sue Defendant Joyner in his individual and official capacities. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 7. It is admitted that Defendant Waddell serves as the Deputy Warden at Central Prison. It is further admitted that Plaintiff purports to sue Defendant Waddell in his individual and official capacities. paragraph are denied. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this 2 Case 5:17-ct BO Document 37 Filed 05/25/18 Page 2 of 26

3 8. It is admitted that Defendant Bond is the Chief Disciplinary Hearing Officer for the Division of Prisons of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety and has served in that capacity since November It is further admitted that in her capacity as Chief Disciplinary Hearing Officer, Defendant Bond reviews the decisions of Disciplinary Hearing Officers at state prison facilities to ensure they are consistent with policy and can approve the decision, disapprove the decision, or order a re-investigation or rehearing. It is further admitted that Plaintiff purports to sue Defendant Bond in her individual and official capacities. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 9. It is admitted that Defendant Raynor was the Disciplinary Hearing Officer at Central Prison. It is further admitted that, in his capacity as Disciplinary Hearing Officer at Central Prison, Defendant Raynor reviewed disciplinary charges issued against inmates at Central Prison and conducted hearings to determine the inmate s guilt or innocence of the charged offenses. It is further admitted that Plaintiff purports to sue Defendant Raynor in his individual and official capacities. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 10. It is admitted that Defendant Solomon previously served as the Director of Prisons for the Division of Adult Correction of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety. It is further admitted that Defendant Solomon oversaw the operations of the adult prison system within the state. It is further admitted that Plaintiff purports to sue Defendant Solomon in his individual and official capacities. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 11. It is admitted that Defendant Soucier previously served as a Correctional Lieutenant at Central Prison during the incidents alleged in the Amended Complaint. It is further admitted 3 Case 5:17-ct BO Document 37 Filed 05/25/18 Page 3 of 26

4 that two of Defendant Soucier s job responsibilities beginning in December 2012 were to serve as Central Prison s Security Risk Group Officer and to maintain security within the prison facility. It is further admitted that Plaintiff purports to sue Defendant Soucier in his individual and official capacities. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 12. It is admitted that Defendant Burkhart serves as a Correctional Sergeant at Central Prison. It is further admitted that Defendant Burkhart was assigned to work in Unit Five in the Workers Residence Building ( WRB ) from August 2015 until February It is further admitted that one of Defendant Burkhart s responsibilities as a Correctional Sergeant in Unit Five was to ensure the safety of inmates housed there. It is further admitted that Plaintiff purports to sue Defendant Burkhart in his individual and official capacities. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 13. It is admitted that Defendant Zadori is employed as a Correctional Officer at Central Prison and served in that capacity at the time of the incidents alleged in the Amended Complaint. It is further admitted that Plaintiff purports to sue Defendant Zadori in his individual and official capacities. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 14. It is admitted that Defendant Rice was employed as a Correctional Officer at Central Prison and served in that capacity at the time of the incidents alleged in the Amended Complaint. It is further admitted that Plaintiff purports to sue Defendant Rice in her individual and official capacities. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 4 Case 5:17-ct BO Document 37 Filed 05/25/18 Page 4 of 26

5 15. It is admitted that Defendant Dawkins was previously employed as a Correctional Sergeant at Central Prison and served in that capacity at the time of the incidents alleged in the Amended Complaint. It is further admitted that Defendant Dawkins currently serves as a Correctional Lieutenant at North Carolina Correctional Institution for Women in Raleigh, North Carolina. It is further admitted that Plaintiff purports to sue Defendant Dawkins in her individual and official capacities. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 16. It is admitted that Defendant Coffin is employed as a Correctional Officer at Central Prison and served in that capacity at the time of the incidents alleged in the Amended Complaint. It is further admitted that Plaintiff purports to sue Defendant Coffin in his individual and official capacities. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 17. It is admitted that Defendant Panter was previously employed as a Correctional Captain at Central Prison and served in that capacity at the time of the incidents alleged in the Amended Complaint. It is further admitted that Plaintiff purports to sue Defendant Panter in his individual and official capacities. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 18. It is admitted that Defendant Jones is a Licensed Practical Nurse employed at Central Prison. It is further admitted that, as part of her job responsibilities, Defendant Jones was responsible for scheduling outside medical appointments for offenders housed at Central Prison and requesting approval for outside medical treatment through the Utilization Review process. It is further admitted that Plaintiff purports to sue Defendant Jones in her individual and official 5 Case 5:17-ct BO Document 37 Filed 05/25/18 Page 5 of 26

6 capacities. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 19. It is admitted that Defendant Sonny-Echendu was previously employed as a Registered Nurse at Central Prison. It is further admitted that, as part of his job responsibilities, Defendant Sonny-Echendu was responsible for scheduling outside medical appointments. It is further admitted that Plaintiff purports to sue Defendant Sonny-Echendu in his individual and official capacities. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 20. It is admitted that Defendant Branch is a Medical Records Assistant employed at Central Prison. It is further admitted that, as part of her job responsibilities, Defendant Branch was responsible for scheduling outside medical appointments for offenders housed at Central Prison and requesting approval for outside medical treatment through the Utilization Review process. It is further admitted that Plaintiff purports to sue Defendant Branch in her individual and official capacities. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 21. It is admitted that Defendant Emory is a Radiologic Technologist employed at Central Prison. It is further admitted that Defendant Emery performed an x-ray on Plaintiff in the fall of It is further admitted that Plaintiff purports to sue Defendant Emory in her individual and official capacities. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 6 Case 5:17-ct BO Document 37 Filed 05/25/18 Page 6 of 26

7 FACTS 22. It is admitted that Plaintiff arrived at Central Prison to begin serving his current sentence in September Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 23. Admitted, upon information and belief. 24. Denied. 25. Denied. 26. Denied. 27. Denied. 28. It is admitted upon information and belief that, during the spring of 2015, the PERT team came to Central Prison to conduct systematic searches of inmate cells for the purpose of locating and seizing contraband. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 29. Denied. 30. Denied. 31. It is admitted that, as the Central Prison Security Risk Group Officer, Defendant Soucier interviewed Plaintiff about Plaintiff s connections to the Bloods gang. It is admitted, upon information and belief, that Defendant Soucier would have questioned Plaintiff in the office of the Unit Manager for Plaintiff s then-assigned housing unit. Except as herein admitted, Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph and the same are therefore denied. 32. It is admitted, upon information and belief, that Plaintiff has previously denied membership in or affiliation with a gang. Except as herein admitted, Answering Defendants lack 7 Case 5:17-ct BO Document 37 Filed 05/25/18 Page 7 of 26

8 sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph and the same are therefore denied. 33. It is specifically denied that Defendant Soucier spread lies about inmates and made others think that certain inmates were snitches. Except as herein specifically denied, Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph and the same are therefore denied. 34. Denied, for lack of information and belief. 35. Denied, for lack of information and belief. 36. Admitted. 37. Denied. 38. It is admitted that Defendant Soucier told Plaintiff to gather his barber equipment and accompany Defendant Soucier to the sergeant s office in the WRB. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 39. Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the allegations contained in this paragraph and the same are therefore denied. 40. Denied. 41. Denied. 42. It is admitted that Defendant Soucier informed Plaintiff that Defendant Soucier intended to question him about passing a note to a Security Threat Group member while Plaintiff was cutting hair in another housing unit the previous weekend. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 43. Denied. 44. Denied. 8 Case 5:17-ct BO Document 37 Filed 05/25/18 Page 8 of 26

9 45. Denied. 46. Admitted. 47. Admitted. 48. It is admitted that Defendant Soucier pushed Plaintiff away with his chest and hands to prevent Plaintiff from punching him. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Soucier assaulted Plaintiff. 49. It is admitted that, during the altercation with Plaintiff, Defendant Soucier attempted a brachial plexus strike but missed when Plaintiff shifted his body and that Defendant Soucier struck Plaintiff in the face. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 50. It is admitted that Defendant Dawkins called for Defendant Burkhart to come from the Sergeant s Office to respond to the scene of the altercation. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 51. It is admitted that Defendant Dawkins attempted to physically separate Plaintiff and Defendant Soucier and shouted Defendant Soucier s name in an attempt to get Defendant Soucier to stop. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 52. It is admitted that Defendant Burkhart responded to the scene and, after observing Plaintiff s repeated refusal to comply with Defendant Soucier s commands to submit to handcuffs, intervened to assist Defendant Soucier to bring Plaintiff under control. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 9 Case 5:17-ct BO Document 37 Filed 05/25/18 Page 9 of 26

10 53. It is admitted that Defendant Dawkins issued a radio call asking for all available staff to respond to the scene. It is further admitted that Defendant Rice responded. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 54. Denied. 55. It is admitted that as the control booth officer in unit OC-4, Defendant Coffin had some view of the Unit Manager s office where the incident occurred. It is further admitted that Defendant Coffin provided a written statement as part of the investigation into the use of force incident. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 56. It is admitted that Plaintiff resisted the efforts of Defendant Soucier, Defendant Burkhart and other staff to bring Plaintiff under physical control and restrain him in handcuffs. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Soucier attacks inmates. 57. Denied. 58. Denied. 59. It is admitted that Plaintiff was eventually handcuffed behind his back. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff knelt on the floor and readily submitted to being handcuffed. 60. It is admitted that Plaintiff accused Defendant Soucier of trying to choke him. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 61. It is admitted that Plaintiff was eventually handcuffed while on the floor. It is further admitted that Plaintiff was taken to medical for evaluation. It is further admitted that 10 Case 5:17-ct BO Document 37 Filed 05/25/18 Page 10 of 26

11 Plaintiff was found to have a small laceration near his right eye. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 62. It is admitted that Defendant Burkhart took photographs of Plaintiff s face following the use of force incident. It is admitted, upon information and belief, that Defendant Burkhart showed Plaintiff at least one of the photographs taken on the camera s digital screen. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 63. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff did not violate prison policies and rules on September 1, It is further specifically denied that Plaintiff was wrongfully charged with disciplinary infractions as a result of the use of force incident on September 1, It is admitted that, on September 1, 2015, Defendant Zadori wrote Plaintiff up on disciplinary charges for making a verbal threat of harm to Defendant Soucier that Defendant Zadori overheard. It is further admitted that Defendant Zadori heard Plaintiff tell Defendant Soucier that I m going to kill that motherfucker and I will get him if it s the last thing I do. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 65. Denied. 66. It is admitted that, on September 1, 2015, Defendants Dawkins, Rice, and Coffin gave written statements provided their version of events with respect to the use of force incidents. It is further admitted that the statement of Defendants Dawkins described what she observed to be Defendant Soucier punching and choking Plaintiff. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 67. Admitted. 68. Denied. 69. Denied. 11 Case 5:17-ct BO Document 37 Filed 05/25/18 Page 11 of 26

12 70. Denied. 71. It is admitted that, on September 14, 2015, Plaintiff prepared a grievance (No ) complaining about the use of force incident of September 1, It is further admitted that the grievance was accepted by staff on September 16, 2015 and was appealed by Plaintiff through Step 3 of the Administrative Remedy Procedure. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 72. Admitted, upon information and belief. 73. It is admitted, upon information and belief that, on September 22, 2015, Plaintiff was escorted to Unit One segregation. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 74. Denied. 75. It is admitted that, following the use of force incident on September 1, 2015, Plaintiff submitted sick calls complaining of symptoms including pain, headaches, numbness on the right side of his face, and blurred vision in his right eye. Except as herein admitted, Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph and the same are therefore denied. 76. It is admitted that Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Ullah at the Central Prison hospital on October 21, Except as herein admitted, Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph and the same are therefore denied. 77. Admitted, upon information and belief. 78. Denied. 12 Case 5:17-ct BO Document 37 Filed 05/25/18 Page 12 of 26

13 79. It is admitted that, on October 22, 2015, Defendant Soucier took control of Plaintiff s personal property. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 80. It is admitted that Defendant Soucier confiscated those items among Plaintiff s personal property that were contraband and placed those items in storage pending the outcome of disciplinary action against Plaintiff for possessing the contraband items. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 81. Denied. 82. It is admitted that Plaintiff was examined by Robert Toler, M.D. on October 22, 2015 at Central Prison hospital. It is further admitted, upon information and belief, that the injury to Plaintiff s right eye was determined by Dr. Toler to be uncorrectable. Except as herein admitted, Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph and the same are therefore denied. 83. Admitted. 84. It is admitted that Defendant Soucier initiated disciplinary charges against Plaintiff for having possession of suspected contraband items on October 22, It is further admitted that Sergeant Amy Ten Broek was assigned to investigate the charges. It is further admitted that Plaintiff had documentation to explain his possession of certain of the suspected contraband items. It is further admitted that some of the hygiene products suspected of being contraband were of the type awarded to inmates for participation in sports tournaments. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 85. It is admitted that Plaintiff was seen by Dionne Sherrill, R.N. on October 29, It is further admitted, upon information and belief, that Plaintiff reported having headaches at the 13 Case 5:17-ct BO Document 37 Filed 05/25/18 Page 13 of 26

14 time of the visit. Except as herein admitted, Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph and the same are therefore denied. 86. Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the allegations contained in this paragraph and the same are therefore denied. 87. Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the allegations contained in this paragraph and the same are therefore denied. 88. Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the allegations contained in this paragraph and the same are therefore denied. 89. It is admitted, upon information and belief, that on December 6, 2015, Plaintiff was housed in segregation at Central Prison. Except as herein admitted, Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph and the same are therefore denied. 90. Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the allegations contained in this paragraph and the same are therefore denied. 91. It is admitted that Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Toler on December 31, 2015 at the Central Prison hospital. Except as herein admitted, Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph and the same are therefore denied. 92. Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the allegations contained in this paragraph and the same are therefore denied. 93. Denied. 94. Denied. 14 Case 5:17-ct BO Document 37 Filed 05/25/18 Page 14 of 26

15 95. Denied. 96. It is specifically denied that Defendant Soucier assaulted any inmate in or not in restraints. Except as herein specifically denied, Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph and the same are therefore denied. 97. It is specifically denied that Defendant Soucier assaulted any inmate in or not in restraints. Except as herein specifically denied, Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph and the same are therefore denied. 98. It is admitted that Plaintiff was designated as a Level III Security Risk Group member following an investigation by Defendant Soucier into suspected ties with the United Blood Nation. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 99. It is admitted that Plaintiff was transferred from Central Prison to Pasquotank Correctional Institution on April 13, It is admitted, upon information and belief, that Plaintiff was housed in segregation upon his arrival at Pasquotank CI. It is further admitted that Plaintiff was subsequently transferred to Alexander Correctional Institution in 2016 and Marion Correctional Institution in Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. DENIAL OF MEDICAL CARE 100. It is admitted, upon information and belief, that medical providers at the eye clinic at Central Prison Hospital submitted a request that Plaintiff receive outside medical care. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. 15 Case 5:17-ct BO Document 37 Filed 05/25/18 Page 15 of 26

16 101. It is admitted that Defendant Emory x-rayed Plaintiff on October 6, It is further admitted, upon information and belief, that Plaintiff was subsequently informed that the x- ray showed no abnormalities or injuries. Except as herein admitted, Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph and the same are therefore denied Admitted, upon information and belief. DISCIPLINARY CHARGES 103. Admitted Admitted Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the allegations contained in this paragraph and the same are therefore denied It is admitted that the statement of Defendant Dawkins contained her recollection of the September 1, 2015 use of force incident that she observed Defendant Soucier punching and choking Plaintiff. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied Denied. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 108. It is admitted that Plaintiff filed and exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to Grievance No which alleged that Defendant Soucier assaulted him on September 1, It is further admitted that Plaintiff filed and exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to Grievance No which alleged that he was the victim of an assault and battery by Defendant Soucier on September 1, It is further admitted that Plaintiff filed and exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to Grievance No Case 5:17-ct BO Document 37 Filed 05/25/18 Page 16 of 26

17 2015-BBKU which alleged that Defendant Soucier assaulted him on September 1, It is further admitted that Plaintiff filed and exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to Grievance No ABKU which alleged that Defendant Burkhart provided false testimony regarding the actions of Defendant Soucier on September 1, 2015, that Defendant Soucier had confiscated Plaintiff s personal property on October 22, 2015, and that Defendant Soucier had accused Plaintiff of being a gang member. It is further admitted that Plaintiff filed and exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to Grievance No CBKU which alleged that Defendant Soucier assaulted him on September 1, 2015 and that Defendant Joyner was part of a conspiracy to cover it up. It is further admitted that Plaintiff filed and exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to Grievance No CBKU which alleged that his earlier grievances had not been responded to. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph are denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies against all of Answering Defendants with respect to all of the claims asserted against them in the Amended Complaint. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 109. Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied. 17 Case 5:17-ct BO Document 37 Filed 05/25/18 Page 17 of 26

18 117. Denied Denied Denied. RELIEF REQUESTED A. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment stating any of the assertions set forth in Paragraphs 1 thru 8 of this Section. B. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction as against Defendants Bond, Solomon, and Raynor for any of the relief requested in Paragraphs 1 thru 4 of this Section. C. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction as against Defendants Soucier and Burkhart based on the assertions in Paragraph 1 of this Section. D. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction as against Defendant Panter based on the assertions in Paragraph 1 of this Section. E. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction as against Defendants Soucier, Panter, Waddell, Bond, Solomon, Raynor, and Burkhart to strip them of their ranks and to terminate the employment of Defendant Soucier. F. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages against any of Answering Defendants as alleged and for the amounts alleged in Paragraphs 1 thru 6 of this Section. It is further specifically denied that joint and several liability is available against Answering Defendants for violations of Plaintiff s constitutional rights. G. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against any of Answering Defendants as alleged and for the amounts alleged in Paragraphs 1 thru 7 of this Section. 18 Case 5:17-ct BO Document 37 Filed 05/25/18 Page 18 of 26

19 PRAYER FOR RELIEF It is specifically denied that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief set forth in Paragraphs A thru E of this Section. ANY AND ALL OTHER ALLEGATIONS MADE IN PLAINTIFF S AMENDED COMPLAINT (D.E. 26), INCLUDING THE RELIEF REQUESTED, EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY ADMITTED ABOVE, ARE HEREBY DENIED. FURTHER ANSWERING THE COMPLAINT AND AS FURTHER DEFENSES THERETO, ANSWERING DEFENDANTS AVER: FIRST FURTHER DEFENSE The Complaint fails, in whole or in part, to state valid claims for relief against Answering Defendants and should be dismissed. SECOND FURTHER DEFENSE Answering Defendants are shielded from liability by Eleventh Amendment and sovereign immunity which is asserted by Answering Defendants as a complete bar to all applicable claims in this action, including but not limited to all official capacity claims against them. Answering Defendants have not waived any applicable immunities or otherwise consented to being sued. THIRD FURTHER DEFENSE Answering Defendants plead that they acted in good faith, without malice, and with the reasonable belief that their actions were lawful and consistent with Plaintiff s clearly established rights at all times. Answering Defendants are therefore protected from liability in this action by qualified immunity which Answering Defendants specifically assert as a defense and bar to all applicable claims in this action. 19 Case 5:17-ct BO Document 37 Filed 05/25/18 Page 19 of 26

20 FOURTH FURTHER DEFENSE Answering Defendants plead public official/public officer immunity as a complete bar to all applicable claims asserted in the Complaint. FIFTH FURTHER DEFENSE To the extent not already asserted herein, Answering Defendants plead all other applicable immunities (including all absolute and qualified immunities) to which they are entitled by law as a complete bar to all applicable claims in this action. SIXTH FURTHER DEFENSE Answering Defendants deny that Plaintiff s constitutional rights were violated. Answering Defendants specifically deny that they subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unusual punishment, deliberately indifferent conduct, or intentional conduct at any time in violation of Plaintiff s constitutional rights. SEVENTH FURTHER DEFENSE Plaintiff s alleged, but denied, damages were not proximately caused by any act or omissions of Answering Defendants. EIGHTH FURTHER DEFENSE Plaintiff s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Answering Defendants specifically plead Plaintiff s failure to exhaust all administrative remedies as to any claims against them as a defense to all applicable claims asserted in this action. NINTH FURTHER DEFENSE The allegations in the Amended Complaint fail to assert sufficient facts to state or support an award of punitive damages as against Answering Defendants as no allegations are asserted in the Amended Complaint which set forth or forecast intentional or reckless disregard by Answering 20 Case 5:17-ct BO Document 37 Filed 05/25/18 Page 20 of 26

21 Defendants of injury, of evil motive, or of the required intent or aggravated conduct required to support or prevail as to a claim for punitive damages. TENTH FURTHER DEFENSE Answering Defendants plead absolute, sovereign and governmental immunity as a bar to Plaintiff s claim for punitive damages. Answering Defendants also assert and raise all applicable defenses, rights, remedies, immunities, limits, and right to bifurcation set forth in Chapter 1D of the North Carolina General Statutes as a bar or limitation to Plaintiff s right to recover punitive damages in this action. ELEVENTH FURTHER DEFENSE The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Defendants Joyner and Waddell for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff s safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment or for proximately causing any alleged, but denied, assault and battery inflicted upon Plaintiff, and that claim should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. TWELFTH FURTHER DEFENSE The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Answering Defendants pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and, pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that claim should be dismissed. THIRTEENTH FURTHER DEFENSE The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Defendants Sonny-Echendu, Jones, Branch and Emory for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and, pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that claim should be dismissed. 21 Case 5:17-ct BO Document 37 Filed 05/25/18 Page 21 of 26

22 FOURTEENTH FURTHER DEFENSE The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Defendants Bond, Solomon, and Raynor for their role, if any, in upholding the discipline imposed against Plaintiff for his actions on September 1, 2015 and any alleged, but denied, violation of any right of Plaintiff right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution arising out of prison disciplinary proceedings and, pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that claim should be dismissed. FIFTEENTH FURTHER DEFENSE The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Defendants Zadori and Burkhart for violating Plaintiff s rights to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to United States Constitution by charging Plaintiff with disciplinary infractions and, pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that claim should be dismissed. SIXTEENTH FURTHER DEFENSE To the extent that Plaintiff asserts claims based on medical negligence or malpractice against any or all of Answering Defendants, said claims are barred and should be dismissed due to Plaintiffs failure to comply with the expert certification provisions of Rule 9(j) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. SEVENTEENTH FURTHER DEFENSE Any and all medical services provided by Defendants Sonny-Echendu, Jones, Branch, and Emory were provided in accordance with the applicable standards of care and in accordance with due care, and pursuant to their best judgment, and Plaintiffs are therefore barred from recovery as against Defendants Sonny-Echendu, Jones, Branch and Emory. 22 Case 5:17-ct BO Document 37 Filed 05/25/18 Page 22 of 26

23 EIGHTEENTH FURTHER DEFENSE To the extent that Plaintiff failed to mitigate and/or lessen the extent of his injuries and/or damages, if any, as required by law, the same is hereby pleaded in bar of Plaintiff s right to recover anything from Answering Defendants in this action. NINETEENTH FURTHER DEFENSE No act or failure to act by Answering Defendants was a proximate cause of the injuries or damages complained of by Plaintiffs. TWENTIETH FURTHER DEFENSE To the extent that Plaintiff s claims pertain to the treatment, if any, provided (or not provided) by Defendants Sonny-Echendu, Jones, Branch, and Emory or their professional medical judgment regarding forms of treatment, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim reviewable under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and Defendants Sonny-Echendu, Jones, and Branch plead such failure in bar of Plaintiff s claims against them. TWENTY-FIRST FURTHER DEFENSE Answering Defendants contend that if the jury should find that any other entity breached any duty of reasonable care applicable to them in connection with any medical care provided to Plaintiffs, and such breach was a proximate cause of injury to Plaintiffs and interrupted the causal relationship between any alleged but denied negligence and/or deliberate indifference of Answering Defendants, the Answering Defendants plead such intervening and superseding negligence and/or deliberate indifference as a complete bar against any recovery by Plaintiffs from them in this matter. 23 Case 5:17-ct BO Document 37 Filed 05/25/18 Page 23 of 26

24 TWENTY-SECOND FURTHER DEFENSE The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Defendant Panter for violating Plaintiff s rights to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to United States Constitution or for retaliation against Plaintiff in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution by concluding as part of an investigation into disciplinary charges lodged against Plaintiff that Plaintiff had committed disciplinary infractions and, pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that claim should be dismissed. TWENTY-THIRD FURTHER DEFENSE The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Defendant Emory for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution by failing to review Plaintiff s x-ray results and, pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that claim should be dismissed. TWENTY-FOURTH FURTHER DEFENSE The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Defendants Dawkins, Rice, and Coffin for deliberate indifference and cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution for failing to intervene in the use of force incident on September 1, 2015 and, pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that claim should be dismissed. ADDITIONAL DEFENSES Answering Defendants reserve the right, as allowed by law or the Court, to amend their Answer to assert any additional affirmative or other defenses allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil 24 Case 5:17-ct BO Document 37 Filed 05/25/18 Page 24 of 26

25 Procedure which develop or arise as additional evidence is discovered during the course of this litigation. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants pray as follows: 1. That Plaintiff have and recover nothing of them in this action; 2. That the costs of this action, including a reasonable attorney s fee, be taxed against the Plaintiff; 3. For a trial by jury on all issues so triable; and 4. That this Court award Answering Defendants such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. This the 25 th day of May, JOSHUA H. STEIN Attorney General /s/joseph Finarelli Joseph Finarelli Special Deputy Attorney General N.C. State Bar No N.C. Department of Justice Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina Telephone: (919) Fax: (919) jfinarelli@ncdoj.gov 25 Case 5:17-ct BO Document 37 Filed 05/25/18 Page 25 of 26

26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this day, I electronically filed the foregoing ANSWER with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system and mailed a copy via first-class United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following non-cm/ecf participant: Brice C. Moore OPUS No Marion Correctional Institution 355 Old Glenwood Road Marion, NC Pro Se Plaintiff This the 25 th day of May, /s/joseph Finarelli Joseph Finarelli Special Deputy Attorney General 26 Case 5:17-ct BO Document 37 Filed 05/25/18 Page 26 of 26