CASE 0:10-cv-04978-SRN-AJB Document 2 Filed 01/27/11 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Rickia Russell, Plaintiff, vs.

COURT FILE NO. 10-CV-4978 SRN/AJB

JOINT ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS Craig Taylor, David Clifford, and Daniel Loe, in their individual capacities as Minneapolis Police officers, and City of Minneapolis, Defendants. TO: Plaintiff, above-named and her attorneys, Robert Bennett, Ryan Vettleson, and Paul Dworak, 333 South Seventh Street, #2900, Minneapolis, MN 55402; and, Allan F. Shapiro, 340 Parkdale Plaza, 1660 South Highway 100, Minneapolis, MN 55416. Defendants, for their Joint Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint state and allege as follows: 1. As to the allegations of paragraph 1 of the Complaint, Defendants admit

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

that the action purports to be a claim for money damages against the named Defendants. Paragraph 1 is not susceptible of responsive pleading, but to the extent that it states or implies liability of the Defendants it is denied. 2. Defendants admit that this Court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant

to the cited statutes. 3. As to the allegations of paragraph 3 of the Complaint, upon information

and belief Defendants admit that Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Minnesota. Defendants admit that Plaintiff is 32 years old. Defendants

CASE 0:10-cv-04978-SRN-AJB Document 2 Filed 01/27/11 Page 2 of 7

are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations of paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Complaint. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 5 of the Complaint. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Complaint. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 7 of the Complaint. As to the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Defendants admit

that Plaintiff was at an apartment located at 5753 Sanders Drive in the City of Minneapolis on the evening of February 16, 2010. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations of the paragraph. 9. 10. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Complaint. As to the allegations of paragraph 10 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that the search warrant application and the search warrant speak for themselves. Defendants admit the remaining allegations of paragraph 10 of the Complaint. 11. As to the allegations of paragraph 11 of the Complaint, Defendants state

that the search warrant application and the search warrant speak for themselves. Defendants admit that the language quoted in paragraph 11 is found within the warrant. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 11. 12. As to the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Complaint, Defendants deny Defendants admit the remaining

that what Loe told the officers was erroneous. allegations of paragraph 12 of the Complaint. 13.

Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 13 of the Complaint. 2

CASE 0:10-cv-04978-SRN-AJB Document 2 Filed 01/27/11 Page 3 of 7

14.

As to the allegations of paragraph 14 of the Complaint, Defendants deny

that their actions were in violation of the express terms of the search warrant. Admit the remaining allegations of paragraph 14 of the Complaint. 15. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the allegations of paragraph 15 of the Complaint. 16. As to the allegations of paragraph 16 of the Complaint, Defendants deny

that they acted without first announcing their authority and purpose in violation of the express terms of the search warrant and further deny that the flash bang grenade was thrown in the direction of Russell. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to where the flash bang grenade came to rest or exploded. Defendants admit the remaining allegations of paragraph 16 of the Complaint. 17. 18. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 17 of the Complaint. As to the allegations of paragraph 18 of the Complaint, Defendants admit

that officers provided Plaintiff with medical attention. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 18 of the Complaint. 19. 20. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 19 of the Complaint. As to the allegations of paragraph 20 of the Complaint, Defendants admit

that Plaintiff was taken to Hennepin County Medical Center by ambulance. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the remaining allegations of paragraph 20 of the Complaint. 21. As to the allegations of paragraph 21 of the Complaint, Defendants admit

that no evidence was recovered from the address on February 16, 2010. 3

CASE 0:10-cv-04978-SRN-AJB Document 2 Filed 01/27/11 Page 4 of 7

22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 22 of the Complaint. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 23 of the Complaint. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 24 of the Complaint. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 25 of the Complaint. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the remaining allegations of paragraph 26 of the Complaint. 27. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the remaining allegations of paragraph 27 of the Complaint. 28. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the remaining allegations of paragraph 28 of the Complaint. 29. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the remaining allegations of paragraph 29 of the Complaint. COUNT ONE Fourth Amendment Violations Against Defendants Taylor, Clifford, and Loe 30. As to the allegations of paragraph 30 of the Complaint, Defendants restate

their foregoing answers to the respective paragraphs. 31. As to the allegations of paragraph 31 of the Complaint, Defendants admit

that the individual Defendants were acting under color of law. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 31 of the Complaint. 32. 33. 34. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 32 of the Complaint. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 33 of the Complaint. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 34 of the Complaint.

CASE 0:10-cv-04978-SRN-AJB Document 2 Filed 01/27/11 Page 5 of 7

35.

Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 35 of the Complaint.

COUNT TWO Fourth Amendment Violation Deliberate Indifference Under Monell By Defendant City of Minneapolis 36. As to the allegations of paragraph 36 of the Complaint, Defendants restate

their foregoing answers to the respective paragraphs. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 37 of the Complaint. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 38 of the Complaint. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 39 of the Complaint. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 40 of the Complaint. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 41 of the Complaint.

COUNT THREE Civil Rights Violation Failure to Train Under Canton By Defendant City of Minneapolis 42. As to the allegations of paragraph 36 of the Complaint, Defendants restate

their foregoing answers to the respective paragraphs. 43. 44. 45. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 43 of the Complaint. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 44 of the Complaint. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 45 of the Complaint. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. 2. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendants Taylor, Clifford and Russell alleges affirmatively they have

qualified immunity from any liability in this action.

CASE 0:10-cv-04978-SRN-AJB Document 2 Filed 01/27/11 Page 6 of 7

3.

Defendants allege affirmatively that they have discretionary immunity and

are immune from liability in this action. 4. Defendants allege affirmatively that they have statutory immunity and are

immune from any liability in this action. 5. Defendants allege affirmatively that they have immunity in the action under

the doctrine of official immunity and vicarious official immunity. 6. Defendants allege affirmatively that the use of force, if any was privileged

under the common law and/or under Minnesota Statutes, including 609.06. 7. Defendants allege affirmatively that Plaintiffs injuries and damages, if any,

were caused, contributed to, or brought about by Plaintiffs unlawful and illegal acts and/or the unlawful and illegal acts of those over whom these Answering Defendants exercise no right of control. 8. 9. in this action. 10. Defendants allege affirmatively that Plaintiff has failed to take reasonable Service of process has not been effected on all named Defendants. Defendants specifically deny that Plaintiff has any right to attorneys fees

action to avoid or mitigate the alleged detriment or damages. 11. Defendant City of Minneapolis affirmatively alleges that the City of

Minneapolis is a municipality, and therefore said Defendant is immune from liability for claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, which are based upon the concept of respondeat superior.

CASE 0:10-cv-04978-SRN-AJB Document 2 Filed 01/27/11 Page 7 of 7

12.

Defendant City of Minneapolis alleges affirmatively that it is a municipality

and therefore is immune from liability for punitive damages. 13. damages. WHEREFORE, these Answering Defendants pray for an Order of this Court as follows: a. b. Dismissing the Plaintiffs Complaint on its merits with prejudice. Awarding Defendants all of their costs and disbursements as allowed by law, including reasonable attorneys fees. For such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable. Defendants allege affirmatively that Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive

c.

Dated: January 27, 2011

SUSAN L. SEGAL City Attorney By s/James A. Moore JAMES A. MOORE Assistant City Attorney Attorney Reg. No. 16883X TRACEY N. FUSSY Assistant City Attorney Attorney Reg. No. 0311807 Attorneys for Defendants City Hall, Room 210 350 South 5th Street Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 673-2063

CASE 0:10-cv-04978-SRN-AJB Document 2-1 Filed 01/27/11 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Rickia Russell, Plaintiff, vs.

COURT FILE NO. 10-CV-4978 SRN/AJB

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Craig Taylor, David Clifford, and Daniel Loe, in their individual capacities as Minneapolis Police officers, and City of Minneapolis, Defendants. TO: Plaintiff, above-named and her attorneys, Robert Bennett, Ryan Vettleson, and Paul Dworak, 333 South Seventh Street, #2900, Minneapolis, MN 55402; and, Allan F. Shapiro, 340 Parkdale Plaza, 1660 South Highway 100, Minneapolis, MN 55416.

I hereby certify that on January 27, 2011, I caused the following document: 1. Joint Answer

to be electronically filed with the Clerk of Court through ECF, and that ECF will send an e-notice of the electronic filing to the following: Robert Bennett Ryan Vettleson Allan F. Shapiro

CASE 0:10-cv-04978-SRN-AJB Document 2-1 Filed 01/27/11 Page 2 of 2

I further certify that I caused a copy of the foregoing documents and the notice of electronic filing to be mailed by first class mail, postage paid, to the following non-ECF participants: N/A

Dated: January 27, 2011

SUSAN L. SEGAL City Attorney By s/James A. Moore JAMES A. MOORE Assistant City Attorney Attorney Reg. No. 16883X TRACEY N. FUSSY Assistant City Attorney Attorney Reg. No. 0311807 Attorneys for Defendants City Hall, Room 210 350 South 5th Street Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 673-2063