You are on page 1of 13

Case: 1:15-cv-00027-DCN Doc #: 83 Filed: 09/14/16 1 of 13.

PageID #: 1465

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ELIZABETH GOODWIN, Administrator of )
the Estate of Tanisha Anderson, Deceased,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CITY OF CLEVELAND, et al.,
)
)
Defendants
)
)

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-0027


JUDGE DONALD NUGENT
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS ALDRIDGE
AND MYERS TO PLAINTIFFS
AMENDED COMPLAINT
**Jury Demand Endorsed Hereon**

Now come Defendants Scott Aldridge (Aldridge) and Bryan Myers (Myers)
(together hereinafter known as the Individual Defendants), by and through undersigned
counsel, and hereby submits their Answer to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. The Individual
Defendants present this Answer under Federal Civil Rule 12, without intending to waive and
expressly preserving all rights, privileges, immunities, and defenses, as may be applicable to the
Individual Defendants. For their Answer to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, the Individual
Defendants respond as follows:
ANSWER
1. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Amended
Complaint.
2. The Individual Defendants admit only that a member of Tanisha Andersons family
called 911 for assistance on November 12, 2014, but denies the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint.
3. Upon on information and belief, the Individual Defendants admit the allegations
contained in Paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint.

Case: 1:15-cv-00027-DCN Doc #: 83 Filed: 09/14/16 2 of 13. PageID #: 1466

4. The Individual Defendants admit that Scott Aldridge was at all times relevant to the
action employed as a police officer by the City of Cleveland, and that he is a person
under 42 U.S.C. 1983 who acted, at all relevant times, under color of law. The
Individual Defendants further admit that Officer Aldridge has been sued in both his
individual and official capacities, but deny the validity of such claims. The Individual
Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Amended
Complaint.
5. The Individual Defendants admit that Brian Myers was at all times relevant to the action
employed as a police officer by the City of Cleveland, and that he is a person under 42
U.S.C. 1983 who acted, at all relevant times, under color of law. The Individual
Defendants further admit that Officer Myers has been sued in both his individual and
official capacities, but deny the validity of such claims. The Individual Defendants deny
the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint.
6. The Individual Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the
Amended Complaint.
7. The Individual Defendants deny for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the
Amended Complaint.
8. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Amended
Complaint.
9. The Individual Defendants deny for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the
Amended Complaint.

Case: 1:15-cv-00027-DCN Doc #: 83 Filed: 09/14/16 3 of 13. PageID #: 1467

10. The Individual Defendants deny for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the
Amended Complaint.
11. The Individual Defendants deny for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the
Amended Complaint.
12. The Individual Defendants deny for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the
Amended Complaint except that the Individual Defendants admit that a family member
called 911 on November 12, 2014 in regards to Tanisha Andersons welfare.
13. The Individual Defendants deny for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the
Amended Complaint.
14. The Individual Defendants deny for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of the
Amended Complaint.
15. The Individual Defendants deny for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of the
Amended Complaint.
16. The Individual Defendants deny for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the
Amended Complaint.

Case: 1:15-cv-00027-DCN Doc #: 83 Filed: 09/14/16 4 of 13. PageID #: 1468

17. The Individual Defendants deny for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the
Amended Complaint except that they admit that the family called 911 and requested
officers come to the house.
18. The Individual Defendants admit only that Officer Aldridge and Officer Meyers arrived
to 1374 Ansel Road at approximately 10:51 p.m., and had not previously responded to
1374 Ansel Road on that night, but deny the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 18 of the Amended Complaint.
19. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the
Amended Complaint.
20. The Individual Defendants admit that Tanisha Anderson voluntarily agreed to go to the
hospital for an evaluation and that Officer Aldridge and Officer Meyers walked Tanisha
Anderson to their zone car to take her to the hospital, but deny the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint.
21. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of the
Amended Complaint.
22. The Individual Defendants deny for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of the
Amended Complaint except that they admit that Tanisha Anderson tried to get out of the
zone car.
23. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of the
Amended Complaint.

Case: 1:15-cv-00027-DCN Doc #: 83 Filed: 09/14/16 5 of 13. PageID #: 1469

24. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of the
Amended Complaint.
25. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of the
Amended Complaint.
26. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of the
Amended Complaint.
27. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of the
Amended Complaint.
28. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of the
Amended Complaint.
29. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of the
Amended Complaint.
30. The Individual Defendants admit only that EMS was called by police dispatch at
approximately 11:34 p.m., but deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 30
of the Amended Complaint.
31. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 31 of the
Amended Complaint.
32. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 32 of the
Amended Complaint.
33. The Individual Defendants admit only that Tanisha Anderson was in handcuffs when
EMS arrived on scene at approximately 11:41 p.m., but denies the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 33 of the Amended Complaint.

Case: 1:15-cv-00027-DCN Doc #: 83 Filed: 09/14/16 6 of 13. PageID #: 1470

34. The Individual Defendants deny for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of the
Amended Complaint.
35. The Individual Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 35 of the
Amended Complaint.
36. The Individual Defendants admit only that the Office of the Cuyahoga County Medical
Examiner ruled Tanisha Andersons official cause of death as sudden death associated
with physical restraint in a prone position in association with ischemic heart disease and
bipolar disorder with agitation and the manner of death as homicide (legal
intervention), but deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of the
Amended Complaint.
37. The Individual Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 37 of the
Amended Complaint.
38. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 38 of the
Amended Complaint.
39. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 39 of the
Amended Complaint.
40. The Individual Defendants deny for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in Paragraph 40 of the
Amended Complaint.
41. The Individual Defendants admit only that General Police Order (GPO) 3.2.06 titled
Handling the Mentally Ill speaks for itself, and deny the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 41 of the Amended Complaint.

Case: 1:15-cv-00027-DCN Doc #: 83 Filed: 09/14/16 7 of 13. PageID #: 1471

42. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 42 of the
Amended Complaint.
43. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 43 of the
Amended Complaint.
44. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 44 of the
Amended Complaint.
45. The Individual Defendants deny for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in Paragraph 45 of the
Amended Complaint.
46. The Individual Defendants deny for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in Paragraph 46 of the
Amended Complaint.
47. The Individual Defendants deny for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in Paragraph 47 of the
Amended Complaint.
48. The Individual Defendants deny for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in Paragraph 48 of the
Amended Complaint.
49. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 49 of the
Amended Complaint.
50. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 50 of the
Amended Complaint.

Case: 1:15-cv-00027-DCN Doc #: 83 Filed: 09/14/16 8 of 13. PageID #: 1472

51. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 51 of the
Amended Complaint.
52. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 52 of the
Amended Complaint.
53. The Individual Defendants deny for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations contained in Paragraph 53 of the
Amended Complaint.
54. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 54 of the
Amended Complaint.
55. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 55 of the
Amended Complaint.
56. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 56 of the
Amended Complaint.
57. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 57 of the
Amended Complaint.
58. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 58 of the
Amended Complaint.
59. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 59 of the
Amended Complaint.
60. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 60 of the
Amended Complaint.
61. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 61 of the
Amended Complaint.

Case: 1:15-cv-00027-DCN Doc #: 83 Filed: 09/14/16 9 of 13. PageID #: 1473

62. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 62 of the
Amended Complaint.
63. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 63 of the
Amended Complaint.
64. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 64 of the
Amended Complaint.
65. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 65 of the
Amended Complaint.
66. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 66 of the
Amended Complaint.
67. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 67 of the
Amended Complaint.
68. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 68 of the
Amended Complaint.
69. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 69 of the
Amended Complaint.
70. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 70 of the
Amended Complaint.
71. The Individual Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 71 of the
Amended Complaint.
72. With respect to Plaintiffs jury demand, the Individual Defendants deny that Plaintiff has
alleged any claims with sufficient merit to warrant a trial, but admit only that Plaintiff has
demanded a trial by jury if any claim or issue proceeds to a trial in this civil action.

Case: 1:15-cv-00027-DCN Doc #: 83 Filed: 09/14/16 10 of 13. PageID #: 1474

73. With respect to Plaintiffs Prayer for Relief, the Individual Defendants deny that Plaintiff
is entitled to any of the relief requested in the Amended Complaint, including
compensatory damages, attorneys fees, expert fees, interest, and costs.
74. The Individual Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation not explicitly
admitted to in this Answer.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
75.

Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

76.

The Individual Defendants are entitled to all absolute, qualified, statutory, or

common law immunities or privileges granted by Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2744 and Ohio
common law, including immunity granted to the City by Ohio Revised Code 2744.02(A)(1).
77.

The Individual Defendants are entitled to all other full and qualified immunities

available under federal law and or state law or both.


78.

Plaintiffs claims and damages may be limited or barred, in whole or in part by

the common law defenses of contributory negligence, comparative negligence, assumption of


risk, and lack of direct and proximate cause.
79.

Plaintiffs claims and damages may be limited or barred, in whole or in part by

any statutory or common law defenses or limitations on compensatory damages, including setoff, collateral source, contribution, and indemnity.
80.

Plaintiffs request for attorney fees and costs may be limited or barred, in whole

or part, by the limitations on attorney fee awards under 42 U.S.C. 1988, Rule 54 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and Ohio law.

Case: 1:15-cv-00027-DCN Doc #: 83 Filed: 09/14/16 11 of 13. PageID #: 1475

81.

Plaintiffs claims and damages may be limited or barred, in whole or in part, by

any statutory or common law defenses or limitations on wrongful death actions, including the
limitations and requirements set forth in Ohio Revised Code 2125.01 and 2125.02.
82.

Plaintiffs claims and damages may be limited or barred, in whole or in part, by

any statutory or common law defenses or limitations for survivorship actions.


83.

Plaintiffs claims and damages may be limited or barred, in whole or in part, by

any statutory or common law defenses or limitations governing joint and several liability,
including the statutory defenses and limitations on joint and several liability set forth in Ohio
Revised Code 2307.22 and 2307.23.
84.

Plaintiffs claims and damages may be limited or barred, in whole or in part, by

failing to join all necessary and indispensable parties.


85.

At all times hereto, Individual Defendants acted reasonably, in good faith, and

with probable cause.


86.

The Individual Defendants reserve the right to file an Amended Answer and assert

additional defenses as may be reveled through discovery.


WHEREFORE, having fully answered Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, Defendants
Aldridge and Myers respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor, dismissing
all claims with prejudice, and awarding costs and reasonable attorneys fees incurred in
defending this action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 and 42 U.S.C. 1988. The Individual Defendants
further request that the Court grant any relief that may be just and appropriate under the
circumstances.

Case: 1:15-cv-00027-DCN Doc #: 83 Filed: 09/14/16 12 of 13. PageID #: 1476

Respectfully Submitted,
BARBARA A. LANGHENRY (0038838)
Director of Law

By:

/s Jillian L. Dinehart
JILLIAN L. DINEHART (0086993)
Assistant Director of Law
JOHN P. BACEVICE, JR. (0087306)
City of Cleveland Department of Law
601 Lakeside Avenue, Room 106
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1077
Tel: (216) 664-2800 Fax: (216) 664-2663
Email: jdinehart@city.cleveland.oh.us
jbacevice@city.cleveland.oh.us
Attorneys for Defendants Aldridge and Myers

JURY DEMAND
Defendants Aldridge and Myers demand a trial by jury comprised of the maximum
number of jurors permitted under the law on all issues.

s/ Jillian L. Dinehart
JILLIAN L. DINEHART (0086993)
Assistant Director of Law

Case: 1:15-cv-00027-DCN Doc #: 83 Filed: 09/14/16 13 of 13. PageID #: 1477

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on September 14, 2016 a copy of the Answer of Defendants Aldridge and
Myers to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint was electronically filed. Notice of this filing will be
sent to all parties by operation of the Courts electronic filing system. Parties may access this
filing through the Courts system.

s/ Jillian L. Dinehart
JILLIAN L. DINEHART (0086993)
Assistant Director of Law