City of Tulsa Et Al Answer to Fields Lawsuit

Published on July 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 28 | Comments: 0 | Views: 117
of 12
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

Case 4:11-cv-00115-GKF -FHM Document 16 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 04/25/11 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA PAUL CAMPBELL FIELDS, Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF TULSA; CHARLES W. JORDAN, individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Police, Tulsa Police Department; and ALVIN DARYL WEBSTER, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Chief of Police, Tulsa Police Department Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 11-CV-115-GKF-FHM ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS CITY OF TULSA; CHARLES W. JORDAN AND A. DARYL WEBSTER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT The Defendants, City of Tulsa (“City”), Charles W. Jordan (“Jordan”) and A. Daryl Webster (“Webster") (collectively “Defendants”), by and through their counsel of record, Gerald M. Bender, Litigation Division Manager, City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, submit the following Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed of record on March 23, 2011. Except for those allegations expressly admitted herein, the Defendants deny each and every material allegation of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (hereinafter “FAC”). In addition to the responses herein to the allegations set forth in the individual paragraphs contained in the FAC and the affirmative defenses set forth hereinafter, Defendants Jordan and Webster would affirmatively allege that Plaintiff’s FAC fails to state any claim upon which relief can be granted against them individually; that the sole purpose of the claim against them as individuals is to attempt to harass them and to

Case 4:11-cv-00115-GKF -FHM Document 16 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 04/25/11 Page 2 of 12

satisfy a personal vendetta held by Fields; to put them in apprehension that their personal assets are at risk; and, to attempt to cause irreparable harm to their reputation in the community. Further, the FAC is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to promote and advance what appears to be the anti-Islamic agenda and aims of the Thomas More Law Center (see, ¶¶ 38-60 of the FAC), to which agenda and aims it appears the named Plaintiff, Paul Fields, subscribes, despite his formerly expressed public claims to the contrary. The actions of the Plaintiff and the Thomas More Law Center in making such claims against Jordan and Webster in their individual capacity are unconscionable; are made in bad faith; and should be immediately and summarily dismissed by this Court sua sponte, with an accompanying award by the Court to Jordan and Webster of damages, including, but not limited to, costs and fees. The Defendants further respond to the individual paragraphs of the FAC as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. The Defendants admit the Plaintiff alleges the right to bring this action

pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Defendants deny all remaining allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraph 1. 2. 3. The Defendants deny the allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraph 2. The Defendants admit paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s FAC details the relief

requested by the Plaintiff. The Defendants specifically deny any and all allegations of violation of constitutional or other rights to which this Plaintiff claims entitlement under the circumstances alleged, and deny that the Plaintiff has stated a claim for, or is entitled

2

Case 4:11-cv-00115-GKF -FHM Document 16 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 04/25/11 Page 3 of 12

to, any relief requested from the Court or recovery of any damages, costs or fees, including attorneys fees, from the Defendants. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. In response to the allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraph 4, the

Defendants admit this Court has jurisdiction, the remaining allegations of paragraph 4 are denied. 5. The Defendants admit the Plaintiff brings claims alleged by the Plaintiff to

be authorized by the statutes and rules set forth in Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraph 5. The Defendants deny the Plaintiff is entitled to any relief requested and further deny all remaining allegations of paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s FAC. 6. The Defendants admit venue is proper in this Court. The remaining

allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraph 6, are denied. PLAINTIFF 7. In response to the allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraph 7, the

Defendants admit that Fields is a resident of Tulsa; that he currently holds the rank of Captain in the Tulsa Police Department; and that he has been a member of the Tulsa Police Department for 16 years. The remaining allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC paragraph 7 are self-serving, irrelevant, and denied. 8. In response to the allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraph 8, the

Defendants would admit that it is patently obvious that the Plaintiff is not a Muslim, nor does he adhere to the Islamic faith. The Defendants further admit that Captain Fields violated a direct and lawful Order expressing his “objection” thereto which “objection” was based upon Plaintiff’s personal bias and was without basis in fact. The Defendants

3

Case 4:11-cv-00115-GKF -FHM Document 16 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 04/25/11 Page 4 of 12

deny the remaining allegations of the Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraph 8, and demand strict proof thereof. 9. In response to the allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraph 9, the

Defendants admit that the Plaintiff, as do all sworn officers of the Tulsa Police Department, swore an oath to defend, enforce and obey the Constitution and Laws of the United States, the State of Oklahoma and the Charter and Ordinances of the City of Tulsa, and to obey the lawful orders of his superior officers and the regulations of the Tulsa Police Department…and that he would protect the Rights…of all citizens and uphold the honor of the Police Profession. The remaining allegations of said paragraph are self-serving and irrelevant, requiring no answer from these Defendants. 10. The Defendants deny Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraph 10, alleging the actions

of the Defendants violated the Constitution of the United States or of the State of Oklahoma. The remaining allegations of said paragraph are self-aggrandizing; selfserving: totally irrelevant to the issue before the Court; and are denied. 11. The Defendants admit that, prior to his outright and unjustified refusal to

obey a direct and lawful Order on February 21, 2011; the Plaintiff was the evening shift commander at the TPD Riverside Division. The remaining allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraph 11, are denied. DEFENDANTS 12. 13. The Defendants admit the allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraph 12. The Defendants deny the allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraph 13 and

demand strict proof thereof.

4

Case 4:11-cv-00115-GKF -FHM Document 16 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 04/25/11 Page 5 of 12

14.

The Defendants deny Plaintiff’s FAC; paragraph 14, alleging the actions

of the Defendants violated the Constitution of the United States or of the State of Oklahoma. The remaining allegations of said paragraph are admitted. 15. The Defendants deny Plaintiff’s FAC; paragraph 15, alleging the actions

of Defendant Jordan violated the Constitution of the United States or of the State of Oklahoma. Jordan denies there is any basis upon which relief should be granted to the Plaintiff against Jordan in his individual capacity and would respectfully request those claims be dismissed. Jordan would also affirmatively state he is entitled to Qualified Immunity on all claims. The remaining allegations of said paragraph are admitted. 16. The Defendants deny Plaintiff’s FAC; paragraph 16, alleging the actions

of Defendant Webster violated the Constitution of the United States or of the State of Oklahoma. Webster denies there is any basis upon which relief should be granted to the Plaintiff against Webster in his individual capacity and would respectfully request those claims be dismissed. Webster would also affirmatively state he is entitled to Qualified Immunity on all claims. The remaining allegations of said paragraph are admitted. STATEMENT OF FACTS 17. The allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraphs 17, 18, and 19 while totally

irrelevant to the issues herein, are admitted. 18. In response to the allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraph 20, the

Defendants admit the idea of holding a “Law Enforcement Appreciation Day” was proposed by the Islamic Society of Tulsa for the stated purpose of showing appreciation to the members of the TPD. The remaining allegations of said paragraph are denied.

5

Case 4:11-cv-00115-GKF -FHM Document 16 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 04/25/11 Page 6 of 12

19.

The Defendants deny the allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraph 21 and

demand strict proof thereof. 20. In response to the allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraph 22, the

Defendants admit that the invitation to attend the “Law Enforcement Appreciation Day” was not a “call for service” as that term is generally understood in law enforcement. 21. The allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC paragraph 23, are denied; as is the self-

serving and entirely inaccurate conclusion drawn from those allegations. 22. The Defendants admit only that the allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC,

paragraph 24, accurately describe a portion of the events and discussions offered by the Islamic Society. 23. The Defendants deny the allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraphs 25 and

26 and demand strict proof thereof. 24. The Defendants admit the portions of the emails referenced in Plaintiff’s

FAC, paragraph 27 are accurately described in said paragraph. The Defendants also admit the email from Major Julie Harris forwarded to the Plaintiff the lawful Order of DCOP Webster to be carried out by Captain Fields. The Defendants deny that the Order referenced in the emails as issued by the Chief of the Operations Bureau, DCOP Webster, required the approval of Chief Jordan, or, that the Order was reviewed by Chief Jordan prior to being issued by DCOP Webster. 25. The Defendants are presently without knowledge or information sufficient

to admit or deny the allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraph 28, and pending discovery, deny same.

6

Case 4:11-cv-00115-GKF -FHM Document 16 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 04/25/11 Page 7 of 12

26.

The Defendants admit Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraph 29, accurately reflects

the portions of the emails referenced therein. Upon information and belief, the Defendants also admit the sequence of delivery described therein is accurate. 27. The Defendants are without information or knowledge sufficient to either

admit or deny whether the motivation of the Plaintiff to deny the lawful Order of a superior officer as described in Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraph 30, is accurate and truthful. The Defendants admit the allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraph 30, as to the actions of DCOP Webster. 28. The allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraph 31, are denied. The Plaintiff

was ordered to appear at the Office of the Chief of Police in order to discuss his continuing refusal to follow a lawful order. 29. 33, and 34. 30. The Defendants admit that prior to his refusal to obey a direct order the The Defendants admit the allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraphs 32,

Plaintiff was a shift commander with the TPD. The remaining allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraph 35, are denied. 31. The Defendants admit that the Plaintiff’s continuing refusal to follow a

direct and lawful order from a superior officer may well have an impact on his career and documentation regarding the refusal; subsequent investigation; and personnel action will become part of his record. The remaining allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraph 36, are denied. 32. The Defendants admit Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraph 37, accurately sets forth

the portions of the email described therein.

7

Case 4:11-cv-00115-GKF -FHM Document 16 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 04/25/11 Page 8 of 12

33.

The allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraphs 38-47 are calculated to do

nothing more than set forth and advance the agenda and views of the Thomas More Law Center, to which the Plaintiff obviously subscribes, and which have absolutely no relevance to the issues involved in this litigation. The Defendants will not acknowledge the anti-Islamic views of the Plaintiff and the Thomas More Law Center set forth in those paragraphs with any answer other than a denial and to further respectfully request that the Court strike said allegations from the Plaintiff’s FAC as a thinly veiled attempt by the Plaintiff and the Thomas More Law Center to improperly utilize this lawsuit as a showcase to advance their anti-Islamic agenda by attacking the Islamic faith and the reputation and intentions of the Islamic Society of Tulsa, which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the Plaintiff refused to obey a direct and lawful order. 34. The allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraph 48, are totally irrelevant to

the matter at issue herein, and the Defendants are without sufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny said allegations are herein denied pending conduct of discovery. 35. The allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraphs 49 and 50 are denied and

strict proof is demanded thereof 36. The allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraphs 51-59 are calculated to do

nothing more than set forth and advance the agenda and views of the Thomas More Law Center, to which the Plaintiff obviously subscribes, and which have absolutely no relevance to the issues involved in this litigation. The Defendants will not acknowledge the anti-Islamic views of the Plaintiff and the Thomas More Law Center set forth in those paragraphs with any answer other than a denial and to further respectfully request that the

8

Case 4:11-cv-00115-GKF -FHM Document 16 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 04/25/11 Page 9 of 12

Court strike said allegations from the Plaintiff’s FAC as a thinly veiled attempt by the Plaintiff and the Thomas More Law Center to improperly utilize this lawsuit as a showcase to advance their anti-Islamic agenda by attacking the Islamic faith and the reputation and intentions of the Islamic Society of Tulsa, which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the Plaintiff refused to obey a direct and lawful order. 37. The Defendants deny the allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraphs 60- 66

and demand strict proof thereof. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Free Exercise of Religion---First Amendment) 38. The Defendants incorporate, as if set forth fully herein, Defendants

response to paragraphs 1-66 of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and in further Answer, would show the Court as follows: 39. The Defendants deny the allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraphs 68-76,

and demand strict proof thereof. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Expressive Association—First Amendment) 40. The Defendants incorporate, as if set forth fully herein, Defendants

response to paragraphs 1-76 of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and in further Answer, would show the Court as follows: 41. The Defendants deny the allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraphs 78-81,

and demand strict proof thereof. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Establishment Clause—First Amendment)

9

Case 4:11-cv-00115-GKF -FHM Document 16 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 04/25/11 Page 10 of 12

42.

The Defendants incorporate, as if set forth fully herein, Defendants

response to paragraphs 1-81 of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and in further Answer, would show the Court as follows: 43. The Defendants deny the allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraphs 83-90,

and demand strict proof thereof. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Equal Protection—Fourteenth Amendment) 44. The Defendants incorporate, as if set forth fully herein, Defendants

response to paragraphs 1-90 of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and in further Answer, would show the Court as follows: 45. The Defendants deny the allegations of Plaintiff’s FAC, paragraphs 92-97,

and demand strict proof thereof. 46. The Defendants deny the Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested

in Plaintiff’s FAC, Prayer for Relief, paragraphs A-F. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 47. The Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) fails to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted against any Defendant. 48. The Plaintiff’s claims are subject to dismissal for failure of the Plaintiff to

exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 49. The Plaintiff’s claims are, or may be, barred by accord and satisfaction;

settlement; and/or, release. 50. All individual Defendants are entitled to Qualified Immunity.

10

Case 4:11-cv-00115-GKF -FHM Document 16 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 04/25/11 Page 11 of 12

51.

The Order at issue herein and the event sponsored by the Islamic Society

of Tulsa had a clearly secular purpose. 52. The action taken by the Defendants herein would have been the same even

in the absence of the protected conduct alleged. 53. The Plaintiff has alleged no facts which would demonstrate entitlement to

injunctive/declaratory relief. 54. The Plaintiff’s FAC fails to state facts sufficient to support claims for

recovery based in state law. 55. This Answer is filed prior to completion of discovery and the Defendants

reserve the right to amend this Answer as necessary, including the addition of affirmative defenses as provided by law or by Order of this Court. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Respectfully submitted, CITY OF TULSA, OKLAHOMA a municipal corporation DAVID PAULING Interim City Attorney

By:

/s/Gerald M. Bender____________ Gerald M. Bender, OBA #14471 Litigation Division Manager City Hall @ One Technology Center 175 E. Second Street, Suite 685 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 Telephone (918) 596-7717 Facsimile (918)596-9700

11

Case 4:11-cv-00115-GKF -FHM Document 16 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 04/25/11 Page 12 of 12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 25th day of April, 2011, I electronically transmitted the foregoing document to the Clerk of Court using the ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following ECF registrants (names only are sufficient): Scott B. Wood WOOD, PUHL & WOOD, PLLC 2409 E. Skelly Drive, Suite 200 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105 THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER Robert J. Muise* 24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive P.O. Box 393 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 *Admitted pro hac vice

/s/Gerald M. Bender________ Gerald M. Bender

12

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close