Case 4:19-cv-02037-CLM Document 7 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 12 FILED

2020 Jan-27 PM 12:28

U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION

JAMES MCKINNEY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CASE NO.: 4:19-cv-02037-CLM
)
ETOWAH COUNTY SHERIFF’S )
DEPARTMENT, BRANDON )
HARE, LOGAN PAGE, )
ANTHONY DAVIS, AND )
WILLIAM LANGDALE, )
)
Defendants. )

DEFENDANTS BRANDON HARE, LOGAN PAGE, ANTHONY DAVIS,

AND WILLIAM LANGDALE’S PARTIAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT

COME NOW the Defendants Brandon Hare, Logan Page, Anthony Davis,

and William Langdale, and answer the Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

The averments in this paragraph do not require a response from these

Defendants. To the extent that any of the averments can be construed as factual

allegations that seek to impose liability upon these Defendants, they are denied.

II. JURISDICTION

1. The averments contained in this paragraph constitute an issue of law

to be properly determined by the Court. Therefore, they are neither admitted nor

1
 Case 4:19-cv-02037-CLM Document 7 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 12

denied. To the extent the averments contained in this paragraph can be construed

as constituting a factual allegation imposing liability on the Defendants, they are

denied.

2. Admitted.

III. PARTIES

3. Defendants are without sufficient information or belief to admit or

deny the averments in this paragraph.

4. Admitted.

5. Admitted.

6. Admitted.

7. Sergeant Langdale admits that he is identified.

8. The averments contained in this paragraph are addressed by

Defendant Etowah County Sheriff’s Office’s Motion to Dismiss.

9. The averments contained in this paragraph are addressed by

Defendant Etowah County Sheriff’s Office’s Motion to Dismiss.

10. The averments contained in this paragraph are addressed by

Defendant Etowah County Sheriff’s Office’s Motion to Dismiss.

IV. FACTS

11. These Defendants incorporate the response to each paragraph to the

Complaint as if fully restated here.

2
 Case 4:19-cv-02037-CLM Document 7 Filed 01/27/20 Page 3 of 12

12. Defendants are without sufficient information or belief to admit or

deny the averments in this paragraph.

13. Defendants are without sufficient information or belief to admit or

deny the averments in this paragraph.

14. Denied.

15. Admitted.

16. The averments contained in this paragraph constitute an issue of law

to be properly determined by the Court. Therefore, they are neither admitted nor

denied. To the extent the averments contained in this paragraph can be construed

as constituting a factual allegation imposing liability on the Defendants, they are

denied.

17. Defendants are without sufficient information or belief to admit or

deny the averments in this paragraph.

18. The averments contained in this paragraph constitute an issue of law

to be properly determined by the Court. Therefore, they are neither admitted nor

denied. To the extent the averments contained in this paragraph can be construed

as constituting a factual allegation imposing liability on the Defendants, they are

denied.

19. Admitted.

20. Admitted.

3
 Case 4:19-cv-02037-CLM Document 7 Filed 01/27/20 Page 4 of 12

21. Admitted.

22. It is admitted that during his interaction with the Defendants,

McKinney stated he needed some help.

23. It is admitted that during his interaction with the Defendants,

McKinney stated that he needed some help. Defendants are without sufficient

knowledge or belief to admit or deny the remaining averments in this paragraph.

24. Admitted.

25. Defendants admit that McKinney stated that he needs some help and

that people have been hurting him.

26. Denied.

27. It is admitted that after repeatedly stating that he needed to get some

help, McKinney stated he was ok. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or

belief to know McKinney’s motive or thoughts.

28. The averments contained in this paragraph constitute an issue of law

to be properly determined by the Court. Therefore, they are neither admitted nor

denied. To the extent the averments contained in this paragraph can be construed

as constituting a factual allegation imposing liability on the Defendants, they are

denied.

29. Denied.

30. The averments contained in this paragraph constitute an issue of law

4
 Case 4:19-cv-02037-CLM Document 7 Filed 01/27/20 Page 5 of 12

to be properly determined by the Court. Therefore, they are neither admitted nor

denied. To the extent the averments contained in this paragraph can be construed

as constituting a factual allegation imposing liability on the Defendants, they are

denied.

31. Admitted.

32. Denied.

33. Denied.

34. Admitted.

35. Denied.

36. It is admitted that McKinney stated “I didn’t do anything.” All other

averments contained in this paragraph are denied.

37. Denied.

38. It is admitted that at one point McKinney said the words “Please help

me.” All other averments contained in this paragraph are denied.

39. It is admitted that a Taser was used on McKinney. All other

averments contained in this paragraph are denied.

40. Denied.

41. It is admitted that McKinney pulled the Taser leads out of his body.

All other averments contained in this paragraph are denied.

42. Admitted.

5
 Case 4:19-cv-02037-CLM Document 7 Filed 01/27/20 Page 6 of 12

43. Admitted.

44. It is admitted that additional help detaining McKinney was sought. All

other averments contained in this paragraph are denied.

45. Denied.

46. It is admitted that a Taser in drive-stun mode was used on McKinney.

All other averments contained in this paragraph are denied.

47. It is admitted that additional law-enforcement officers came to the aid

of the Defendants as they attempted to detain McKinney. All other averments

contained in this paragraph are denied.

48. It is admitted that the Taser had little effect on McKinney. Defendants

are without sufficient information or belief to admit or deny the remaining

averments in this paragraph.

49. Denied.

50. Defendants admit that Page deployed his Taser in drive-stun mode in

McKinney’s buttock region.

51. It is admitted that two pair of handcuffs were linked together to

handcuff McKinney. All other averments contained in this paragraph are denied.

52. Denied.

53. It is admitted that a law-enforcement officer stated his sunglasses

were broken in the altercation. All other averments contained in this paragraph are

6
 Case 4:19-cv-02037-CLM Document 7 Filed 01/27/20 Page 7 of 12

denied.

54. It is admitted that an officer stated $100 worth of cartridges had been

used in the altercation. All other averments contained in this paragraph are denied.

55. Denied.

56. It is admitted that McKinney’s identification was retrieved. All other

averments are denied.

57. Denied.

58. Admitted.

59. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or belief to admit or

deny the averments in this paragraph.

60. Admitted.

61. It is admitted that during the altercation, McKinney stated “Y’all will

pay for this.” Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or belief to admit or

deny the remaining averments of this paragraph.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

Count One. 42 U.S.C. § 1983

62. These Defendants incorporate the response to each paragraph to the

Complaint as if fully restated here.

63. The averments contained in this paragraph constitute an issue of law

to be properly determined by the Court. Therefore, they are neither admitted nor

7
 Case 4:19-cv-02037-CLM Document 7 Filed 01/27/20 Page 8 of 12

denied. To the extent the averments contained in this paragraph can be construed

as constituting a factual allegation imposing liability on the Defendants, they are

denied.

64. The averments contained in this paragraph constitute an issue of law

to be properly determined by the Court. Therefore, they are neither admitted nor

denied. To the extent the averments contained in this paragraph can be construed

as constituting a factual allegation imposing liability on the Defendants, they are

denied.

65. Denied.

66. Denied.

67. Defendants admit of being notified of McKinney’s strange behavior.

All other averments contained in this paragraph are denied.

68. Denied.

69. Denied.

70. Denied.

71. Denied.

72. Denied.

73. Denied.

74. Denied.

75. Denied.

8
 Case 4:19-cv-02037-CLM Document 7 Filed 01/27/20 Page 9 of 12

76. Denied.

77. Denied.

Count Two. 42 U.S.C. § 1983

78. These Defendants incorporate the response to each paragraph to the

Complaint as if fully restated here.

79.–92. The averments contained in Count Two of Plaintiff’s Complaint

are addressed in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and corresponding Memorandum

Brief.

Count Three. VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH

DISABILITIES ACT

93. These Defendants incorporate the response to each paragraph to the

Complaint as if fully restated here.

94.–112. The averments contained in Count Three of Plaintiff’s

Complaint are addressed in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and corresponding

Memorandum Brief.

Count Four. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701

et. seq.

113. These Defendants incorporate the response to each paragraph to the

Complaint as if fully restated here.

114.–133. The averments contained in Count Three of Plaintiff’s

Complaint are addressed in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and corresponding

9
 Case 4:19-cv-02037-CLM Document 7 Filed 01/27/20 Page 10 of 12

Memorandum Brief.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief sought.

A. Denied.

B. Denied.

C. Denied.

D. This paragraph is subject to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

E. Denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Plaintiff, separately and severally, fails to state a cause of action under

the Fourth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

2. Plaintiff’s constitutional claims cannot be sustained as a matter of law.

3. Defendants assert that they are not liable in any manner to Plaintiff

regarding the allegations contained in the Complaint.

4. In their individual capacities, Defendants are entitled to qualified

immunity from Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

5. Plaintiff lacks standing to seek any equitable relief.

6. Defendants assert that the imposition of punitive damages under

Alabama law is arbitrary and capricious inasmuch as there are no standards for fair

and objective calculation of such damages and as the same are penal in nature;

10
 Case 4:19-cv-02037-CLM Document 7 Filed 01/27/20 Page 11 of 12

Plaintiff must show entitlement to the same by evidence beyond a reasonable

doubt; further imposition of punitive damages under Alabama law is contrary to

the due process and equal protection clauses of both the Constitution of the United

States and the State of Alabama Constitution; and that imposition of punitive

damages under Alabama law, even with Green Oil and Hammonds guidelines, is

arbitrary and capricious, leading to “grossly excessive” punitive damage awards

inasmuch as a jury is provided neither guidelines and reaching some rational ratio

between compensatory and punitive damages, nor some rational relation between

the Defendant’s alleged conduct and the legitimate interest of the State to punish

willful conduct and deter its repetition.

7. The Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages violates the Defendants’

rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of

the State of Alabama, in that they are penal in nature, yet require a burden of proof

by Plaintiff which is less than beyond a reasonable doubt.

8. Defendants deny that they have been guilty of any conduct which

warrants the issue of punitive damages being submitted to the jury or which allows

the Plaintiff to recover punitive damages.

9. Defendants reserve the right to amend this Answer to add additional

affirmative defenses as discovery progresses.

Submitted this 27th day of January, 2020.

11
 Case 4:19-cv-02037-CLM Document 7 Filed 01/27/20 Page 12 of 12

/s/J. Randall McNeill

J. RANDALL McNEILL (ASB-4841-E29J)
Attorneys for Defendants Etowah County Sheriff’s
Department, Brandon Hare, Logan Page, Anthony
Davis, and William Langdale
WEBB & ELEY P.C.
7475 Halcyon Pointe Drive (36117)
Post Office Box 240909
Montgomery, Alabama 36124
(334) 262-1850 T
(334) 262-1889 F
[email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this the 27th day of January, 2020, I electronically
filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which
will send notification of such filing to the following:

Kira Fonteneau
The Fonteneau Firm LLC
A Member of the Five Points Law Group, LLC
2151 Highland Avenue, Suite 205
Birmingham, AL 35205

/s/J. Randall McNeill

OF COUNSEL

12