Case 3:10-cv-00342-P Document 4 Filed 03/22/2010 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

SHOMARI STATEN §
§
§
vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-CV-00342
§
CITY OF CARROLLTON AND §
OFFICER DAVID TATOM §

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CITY OF CARROLLTON

TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES the CITY OF CARROLLTON, one of the Defendants in the above-

entitled and numbered cause and respond to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint as follows:

1. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint.

2. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint except

for the allegation that it is legally responsible for the actions of its officers, which allegation is

denied.

3. The allegations of paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint are admitted.

4. Defendant admits the jurisdictional and venue allegations of Paragraphs 4 of Plaintiff’s

Original Complaint.

5. Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint is not the type of allegation which requires

admission or denial.

6. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint.

Answer of Defendant, City of Carrollton, to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

1
 Case 3:10-cv-00342-P Document 4 Filed 03/22/2010 Page 2 of 6

7. Defendant lacks sufficient information, after reasonable inquiry, to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations of Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint,

therefore such are denied.

8. The allegations of Paragraph 13 and 14 of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint are denied.

9. The allegations of Paragraph 15 of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint are denied.

10. The allegations of Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint are denied, except for

the allegations that other officers arrived, that Plaintiff produced adequate evidence of his

identity and of his carry permit, that no citation was issued, that Plaintiff was freed and returned

his weapon and ammunition, which allegations are admitted.

11. The allegations of Paragraphs 17 and 18 of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint are denied,

except that it is admitted that Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Tatum and filed a

request for public information, and that Plaintiff was arrested on outstanding warrants on or

about March 19, 2009.

12. The allegations of Paragraph 19 of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint are denied, except that

it is admitted that Plaintiff was questioned after his arrest.

13. The allegations of Paragraph 20 of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint are denied, except that

it is admitted that Plaintiff was photographed after his arrest.

14. The allegations of Paragraph 21 of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint are denied, except that

it is admitted that the vehicle Plaintiff had been driving was impounded after his arrest.

15. The allegations of Paragraph 22 of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint are denied.

16. The allegations of Paragraph 23 of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint are admitted.

17. The allegations of paragraph 24 of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint are admitted.

Answer of Defendant, City of Carrollton, to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

2
 Case 3:10-cv-00342-P Document 4 Filed 03/22/2010 Page 3 of 6

18. The allegations of Paragraph 25 of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint are denied.

19. The allegations of Paragraph 26 of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint are denied, except for

the allegation that the officers were acting under color of law, which allegation is admitted

20. The allegations of paragraph 27 of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint are admitted.

21. The allegations of Paragraphs 28, 29, and 30 of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint are denied,

except that it is admitted that Plaintiff was briefly restrained, questioned, freed and returned his

gun and ammunition and that charges were later filed against him for unlawfully failing to

comply with the statute requiring him to identify himself as a holder of a concealed handgun

permit and resisting arrest. It is also admitted that Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant

Tatom and requested videos under a public information request and that the Dallas County

District Attorney’s office dismissed the charges filed against Plaintiff.

22. Paragraph 31 of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint does not contain allegations requiring

admission or denial.

23. The allegations of Paragraph 32 of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint are denied.

24. Paragraph 33 of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint does not contain allegations requiring

admission or denial.

25. The allegations of Paragraphs 34, 35, 36 and 37 of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint are

denied.

26. Defendant denies all allegations of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint except as specifically

admitted herein.

Answer of Defendant, City of Carrollton, to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

3
 Case 3:10-cv-00342-P Document 4 Filed 03/22/2010 Page 4 of 6

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

27. Defendant asserts that it is a municipality and not liable for the tortious conduct, if any, of

its employees. This Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s intentional act in failing to identify himself

as the holder of a concealed handgun permit, failure to follow lawful orders and failing and

refusing to remove his hand from where he was carrying a concealed weapon and his failure to

follow the law then in effect requiring him to announce his concealed handgun carry permit and

to advise the office of the presence of such weapon was the proximate cause of his injuries, and

Defendant asserts the defense of mutual combat, or in the alternative, the defense of self-defense.

28. Defendant was unaware of any tendency of Defendant David Tatom or any of the other

unidentified officers about whom Plaintiff complains to use excessive force or to act in a

reckless, unlawful, unconstitutional or unjustified fashion. It believed that Defendant Tatom and

the other officers were and are well-trained competent police officers who could be trusted to act

reasonably and competently in all situations in which they could be expected to find themselves.

Defendant’s police officers did not know Plaintiff at the time of the alleged offenses and bore

him no malice.

29. Defendant had no unconstitutional policies or practices or customs.

30. Defendant asserts that it violated no duty owed to Plaintiff. Defendant asserts that

Plaintiff assumed the risk of the consequences of his actions with regard to the incident that is

the subject matter of this lawsuit, but that Defendant City is not liable through Respondeat

Superior, and can only be held liable for injuries proximately caused by unconstitutional customs

or policies of policy makers of the city and that there were no unconstitutional customs or

policies.

Answer of Defendant, City of Carrollton, to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

4
 Case 3:10-cv-00342-P Document 4 Filed 03/22/2010 Page 5 of 6

31. No event had ever occurred which would have caused any policy maker of Defendant to

reasonably foresee the need for any policies other than those which were in place at the time of

the events complained of. No policy maker was deliberately indifferent in failing to adopt any

policy whose absence proximately caused Plaintiff’s damages.

32. Neither Defendant’s existing policies nor the absence of any policy proximately caused

Plaintiff’s damages.

33. All of Defendant’s police officers were trained and licensed police officers and had never

committed any act which would have caused any policy maker to be aware of a need for more or

different policies.

34. Defendant’s policies concerning police operations are all constitutional.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant City of Carrollton, prays that

Plaintiff take nothing by the above styled and numbered cause of action; that all relief be denied;

that all costs, if applicable, be assessed against Plaintiff; and that Defendant have any other and

further relief, at law or in equity, to which it may be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ George Staples

____________________________________
GEORGE A. STAPLES
State Bar No. 19058000

TAYLOR, OLSON, ADKINS, SRALLA

& ELAM, L.L.P.
6000 Western Place, Suite 200
I-30 @ Bryant Irvin
Fort Worth, Texas 76107
Phone: 817/332-2580
Facsimile: 817/332-4740

Answer of Defendant, City of Carrollton, to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

5
 Case 3:10-cv-00342-P Document 4 Filed 03/22/2010 Page 6 of 6

R. CLAYTON HUTCHINS
State Bar No. 10344000
P.O. Box 110535
Carrollton, Texas 75011-0535
Phone: 972/466-3000
Facsimile: 972/466-3252

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT,

CITY OF CARROLLTON

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 22, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document
with the clerk of the court for the U. S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the
electronic case filing system of the court. The electronic case filing system sent a “Notice of
Electronic Filing” to the following attorneys of record who have consented in writing to accept
this Notice as service of this document by electronic means:

Andrew A. Bergman
Jay K. Gray
4514 Travis Street, Suite 300
Dallas, Texas 75205

/s/ George Staples

___________________________________
GEORGE A. STAPLES

Answer of Defendant, City of Carrollton, to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint