From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Adamson

United States District Court, District of Nevada
Dec 5, 2022
3:21-cv-00500-MMD-CSD (D. Nev. Dec. 5, 2022)

Opinion

3:21-cv-00500-MMD-CSD

12-05-2022

JASON BROWN, Plaintiff, v. DR. ADAMSON, et al., Defendants.

AARON D. FORD Attorney General, LAURA M. GINN, (Bar No. 8085). Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants Richard Fraley and Dana Marks AARON D. FORD Attorney General, LAURA M. GINN (BAR NO. 8085) Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants


AARON D. FORD Attorney General, LAURA M. GINN, (Bar No. 8085). Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants Richard Fraley and Dana Marks

AARON D. FORD Attorney General, LAURA M. GINN (BAR NO. 8085) Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants

DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT

Defendants, Richard Fraley and Dana Marks, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General for the State of Nevada, and Laura M. Ginn, Deputy Attorney General, hereby Answer Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 8) as follows:

A. JURISDICTION

1. Defendants admit Plaintiff, Jason Brown, is an inmate in the lawful custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC). Defendants deny all remaining allegations in this paragraph.

2. No answer is required as this named Defendant, Dr. Adamson, is not a party to this litigation at this time. Inasmuch as a response is required, Defendants deny all allegations in this paragraph.

3. No answer is required as this named Defendant, Dr. Carroll, was dismissed upon mandatory screening. See ECF No. 7.

4. No answer is required as this named Defendant, Nurse Clara, was dismissed upon mandatory screening. See ECF No. 7.

2. Defendants admit that Richard Fraley, believed to be sued as Coach Fraley is employed by NDOC as a Coach. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in this paragraph.

Plaintiff's numbering restarts at 2. For consistency, Defendants follow Plaintiff's numbering.

3. No answer is required as this named Defendant, S C/O Harlow, was dismissed upon mandatory screening. See ECF No. 7.

4. Defendants admit that Dana Marks, is employed by NDOC as a Doctor. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in this paragraph.

5. No answer is required as this named Defendant, Lt. Preston, was dismissed upon mandatory screening. See ECF No. 7.

6. No answer is required as these unnamed Defendants, Jane Does 1 and 2, were dismissed upon mandatory screening. See ECF No. 7.

7. Defendants admit jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants deny jurisdiction is proper on any other basis.

C. NATURE OF THE CASE

8. Defendants deny all allegations contained in this paragraph.

D. CAUSE OF ACTION

COUNT I - DENY: Defendants admit Plaintiff has rights afforded to him under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments United States Constitution. Defendants deny those rights, or any rights afforded to Plaintiff, were violated in any way at any time by Defendants.

1. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

2. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

3. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

4. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

5. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

6. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

7. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

8. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

9. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

COUNT II - DENY: Defendants admit Plaintiff has rights afforded to him under the Eighth Amendment United States Constitution. Defendants deny those rights, or any rights afforded to Plaintiff, were violated in any way at any time by Defendants.

1. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

2. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

3. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

4. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

5. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

6. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

7. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

8. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

9. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

10. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

11. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

12. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

13. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

14. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

15. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

16. Defendants do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

E. PREVIOUS LAWSUITS

9. No answer is required with respect to this paragraph, as this paragraph was left blank. To the extent and answer is required, Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

10. No answer is required with respect to this paragraph, as this paragraph was left blank. To the extent and answer is required, Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph and, therefore, deny on that basis.

F. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

1. Defendants deny Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief sought in the Complaint.

G. ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS

Regarding any allegations not specifically admitted or denied herein, Defendants deny such allegations.

H. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendants assert the following Affirmative Defenses:

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants are not personally involved in the cause in fact and/or the proximate cause of the alleged claims.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

This action is time-barred by applicable statutes of limitations.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants acted in good faith toward Plaintiff. Therefore, Defendants are entitled to qualified good faith immunity from damages.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants are entitled to qualified and absolute immunity.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants acted in accord with applicable law and legally mandated prison procedures.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Nevada Constitution, Article 6, subsection 6, and NRS 41.031.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff fails to mitigate damages, if any, and is thus barred from seeking monetary damages.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff was himself negligent in his conduct; such negligence is the sole, primary, and superseding cause of any damages sustained by him, if any.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff's punitive damage claims are barred by law.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants are immune from liability because the acts complained of were discretionary in nature or were performed under relevant statutory or regulatory authority.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants held a good faith belief that they were acting reasonably and that their actions were privileged and legally justified.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff's conduct constitutes a waiver of any alleged wrongful conduct undertaken by Defendants.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff's conduct ratified any alleged wrongful conduct by the Defendants.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants are immune from liability as a matter of law.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants reserve the right to amend this answer to allege additional affirmative defenses if subsequent discovery so warrants.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff's negligence caused or contributed to any injury or damage that Plaintiff might have sustained, and the negligence of Defendants, if any, requires that the damages of Plaintiff be denied or diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to Plaintiff.

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants cannot be sued for monetary damages while acting in their official capacity in a civil rights action.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff is estopped from pursuing any claim against Defendants in accord with equitable principles of jurisprudence.

TWENTY FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel bar Plaintiff from asserting the matters set forth in his Complaint and also act as a bar to any relief sought by Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for relief as follows:

1. That Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.

2. That Plaintiff take nothing by virtue of his Complaint.

3. For attorney fees and costs of suit herein.

4. A jury trial is demanded.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I am an employee of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, and that on December 5, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO COMPLAINT, via this Court's electronic filing system. Parties that are registered with this Court's electronic filing system will be served electronically.

Jason Brown, #1147705

Lovelock Correctional Center

1200 Prison Road

Lovelock, NV 89419

Karen Easton An employee of the Office of the Nevada Attorney General


Summaries of

Brown v. Adamson

United States District Court, District of Nevada
Dec 5, 2022
3:21-cv-00500-MMD-CSD (D. Nev. Dec. 5, 2022)
Case details for

Brown v. Adamson

Case Details

Full title:JASON BROWN, Plaintiff, v. DR. ADAMSON, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, District of Nevada

Date published: Dec 5, 2022

Citations

3:21-cv-00500-MMD-CSD (D. Nev. Dec. 5, 2022)