4:16-cv-03444-RBH-SVH Date Filed 11/23/16 Entry Number 5 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Alex Lorenzo Robinson, ) C/A No. 4:16-cv-03444-SVH-RBH

)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
) ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS
Officer Kent Donald and The Horry )
County Police Department, )
)
Defendants. )
______________________________)

The Defendants answer the Complaint of the Plaintiff as follows:

1. Admitted.

2. Admitted.

3. Admitted.

4. Admitted.

5. Defendants admit that Plaintiff was arrested and charged with trafficking cocaine based upon,
among other things, evidence seized during a search warrant. Upon information and belief, the dates
were in September and October of 2008.

6. Denied.

7. Defendants admit Plaintiff was convicted of trafficking cocaine but are unsure of the date or
sentence; therefore strict proof is demanded thereof.

8. These Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief to as to the allegations
in paragraph 8 of the Complaint and therefore deny the same and demand strict proof thereof.

9. These Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief to as to the allegations
in paragraph 9 of the Complaint and therefore deny the same and demand strict proof thereof.

10. Defendants admit a search warrant was obtained in this case. These Defendants are without
sufficient information to form a belief to as to the remaining allegations in paragraph 10 of the
Complaint and therefore deny the same and demand strict proof thereof.
 4:16-cv-03444-RBH-SVH Date Filed 11/23/16 Entry Number 5 Page 2 of 6

11. These Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief to as to the allegations
in paragraph 11 of the Complaint and therefore deny the same and demand strict proof thereof.

12. Denied.

13. Denied.

14 Denied.

15. Denied.

16. Admitted.

17. Denied.

18. Denied.

19. Denied.

20. Denied.

21. These Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations of
paragraph 21 of the Complaint and therefore deny the same and demand strict proof thereof.

22. Denied.

23. Denied.

FURTHER ANSWERING THE PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT AND AS AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES THE DEFENDANTS ALLEGE:

FOR A FIRST DEFENSE

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

24. The Defendants are arms of the state and are entitled to sovereign immunity from suit
requiring dismissal of this action. Defendants are entitled to sovereign/Eleventh Amendment
immunity from suit.

FOR A SECOND DEFENSE

SOUTH CAROLINA TORT CLAIMS ACT

25. Plaintiffs state law claims are governed by the exclusive provisions of the South Carolina
Tort Claims Act, S.C. Code 15-78-10, et seq. and Defendants are entitled to the limitations and
defenses contained within the Act including, but not limited to, those set forth in code Sections 15-
78-60(1)-(5), (17), (21), (23), and (25).
 4:16-cv-03444-RBH-SVH Date Filed 11/23/16 Entry Number 5 Page 3 of 6

FOR A THIRD DEFENSE

PROBABLE CAUSE/FACIALLY VALID WARRANT FOR ARREST

26. The arrest and detention of Plaintiff was made pursuant to a facially valid warrant and was
supported by probable cause.

FOR A FOURTH DEFENSE

COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE

27. The Plaintiff injuries and damages, if any, were proximately caused by the greater, and/or
contributing negligence, gross negligence, willfulness, and/or wantonness of the Plaintiff which
exceeded and/or combined with the negligence, if any, on the part of the Defendants. As such, the
Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of comparative negligence. Alternatively, the Plaintiffs
recovery, if any, should be reduced in proportion to the negligence, gross negligence, willfulness,
and/or wantonness of the Plaintiff.

FOR A FIFTH DEFENSE

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

28. The South Carolina Tort Claims Act prohibits punitive damages against these Defendants
and such an award would violate the Defendants rights under the Due Process clause found in the
United States and South Carolina Constitutions in that:

a. the judiciary's ability to correct a punitive damages award only upon a finding of
passion, prejudice, or caprice is inconsistent with due process guarantees;

b. any award of punitive damages serving a compensatory function is inconsistent with

due process guarantees;

c. any award of punitive damages based upon the wealth of the Defendants violates due
process and equal protection guarantees;

d. the jury's unfettered power to award punitive damages in any amount it chooses is
wholly devoid of meaningful standards and is inconsistent with due process
guarantees; and

e. even if it could be argued that the standard governing the imposition of punitive
damages exist, the standard is void for vagueness.

Likewise, the alleged acts, conduct and/or omissions of the Defendants are insufficient to
support an award of punitive damages against the Defendants.
 4:16-cv-03444-RBH-SVH Date Filed 11/23/16 Entry Number 5 Page 4 of 6

FOR A SIXTH DEFENSE

FAILURE TO SERVE

29. Upon information and belief, the Plaintiff failed to properly serve the Defendants and the
action must be dismissed as to them for the failure of service under Rules 12(b) 12(b)(2) and
12(b)(5), FRCP.

FOR A SEVENTH DEFENSE

JUSTIFICATION

30. That the acts, conduct and/or omissions of the Defendants, if any, were legally justified.

FOR A EIGHTH DEFENSE

STATUTORY CAP UPON DAMAGES

31. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. 15-78-120(a)(1), the Plaintiffs claims are subject to a statutory
cap on damages, which cap is pled as a limitation on and defense to such claims.

FOR A NINTH DEFENSE

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

32. The Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted.

FOR A TENTH DEFENSE

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

33. Defendants acts, conduct, and/or omissions did not violate either the Plaintiffs clearly
established statutory or constitutional rights and were reasonable under settled law. Therefore, the
Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from suit.

FOR AN ELEVENTH DEFENSE

NO INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY

34. An employee of a governmental entity who commits a tort while acting within the scope of
his official duty is not liable therefor. S.C. Code Ann. 17-78-709(a). Accordingly, the Defendants
cannot be held individually liable for the commission of any alleged tort committed while acting
within the scope of their official duty.

FOR A TWELFTH DEFENSE

FAILURE TO MEET STATUTORY DEFINITION OF A PERSON

35. Defendants are not persons subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, since neither a State
nor a state official in their official capacity (ie. Sheriffs and/or a Sheriffs Department) is a person
for purposes of a 1983 action.
 4:16-cv-03444-RBH-SVH Date Filed 11/23/16 Entry Number 5 Page 5 of 6

FOR A THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

CONSTITUTIONALITY

36. The acts, conduct, and/or omissions, complained of by the Plaintiffs were constitutional.

FOR A FOURTEENTH DEFENSE

DOCTRINE OF UNCLEAN HANDS

37. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the unclean hands doctrine.

FOR A FIFTEENTH DEFENSE

NO DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE

38. To the extent that Plaintiff attempts to assert a claim for failure to train, supervise, or
discipline, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, which is denied, Defendants cannot be held liable, since
their acts, conduct, or omissions, if any, were not deliberately indifferent to the rights of the Plaintiff.

FOR AN SIXTEENTH DEFENSE

NO FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM EMOTIONAL
DISTRESS, PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS, OR MENTAL ANGUISH

39. There is no federal constitutional right to be free from emotional distress, psychological
stress, or mental anguish, and, hence, there is no liability under 1983 regarding such claims.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

40. Defendants respectfully request that all genuine issues of material fact, should any exist, be
tried before a jury.

WHEREFORE, Defendants request that the Court deny the relief pled in the Complaint,
dismiss the Complaint, award the Defendants costs and reasonable attorneys fees, and award any
other relief the Court deems just and equitable.

WILLCOX, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, P.A.

By: s/ E. Lloyd Willcox, II

E. LLOYD WILLCOX, II
USDC I.D. No.: 5256
PO Box 1909
Florence, SC 29503-1909
(843) 662-3258 - Tel
 4:16-cv-03444-RBH-SVH Date Filed 11/23/16 Entry Number 5 Page 6 of 6

(843) 662-1342 - Fax

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
November 23, 2016