Michael Edwards Answer To Anthony Burton Civil Lawsuit

Case 4:23-cv-00111-WTM-CLR Document 8 Filed 05/04/23 Page 1 of 45
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT of GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
BURT ANTHONY BURTON, Plaintiff | Civil Action No.

|
vs. |
SHALENA COOK JONES, in her Defendants | CV423-111

individual & official capacities |
MICHAEL L. EDWARDS, in his |
individual capacity and |
CHATHAM COUNTY, GEORGIA |
ANSWER of DEFENDANT, MICHAEL L. EDWARDS
MICHAEL L. EDWARDS, a Defendant above (“Defendant”) by and through
undersigned counsel and within the time period permitted under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Georgia, herewith ANSWERS Plaintiff’s Complaint by
showing the following:
FIRST DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be had or
granted and thus must be dismissed as a matter of law.
SECOND DEFENSE – MOTION to DISMISS
To the extent that Plaintiff’s claims are based on Defendant’s having filed a
Bar Complaint against Plaintiff in January of 2023, they must be dismissed,

Answer.doc Page 1 of 45
Burton vs. Jones, Edwards, & Chatham County, Georgia
United States District Court, S.D.Ga, Savannah Division CV423-111
because any statements made by Defendant in the Bar Complaint are absolutely
privileged and under no circumstances may form the basis for a right of action.1
THIRD DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s counsel’s artful nomenclature notwithstanding, Plaintiff’s Claims
in his Complaint are, in reality, brought against this individual Defendant in his
Official, not Individual, Capacity, and as such, they are claims against the Office of
the District Attorney of the Eastern Judicial Circuit of Georgia (“D.A.’s Office”) and
must be dismissed as a matter of law.2
FOURTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s Complaint against this individual Defendant must be dismissed as
a matter of law, because all actions thereof of which Plaintiff complains were
discretionary (not ministerial) acts performed in good faith and within the
performance of official duties and not in his individual capacity. Defendant is
therefore entitled to the defense of Official Immunity.3
1 Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct 4-221.3 provides: “Pleadings and oral and written statements of
members of the Boards, members and designees of the Lawyer Assistance Program, Special Masters, Bar
counsel and investigators, complainants, witnesses, and respondents and their counsel made to one
another or filed in the record during any investigation, intervention, hearing, or other disciplinary
proceeding under this Part IV, and pertinent to the disciplinary proceeding, are made in performance of
a legal and public duty, are absolutely privileged, and under no circumstances form the basis for a right
of action.” (emphasis added)
2 See Cameron vs. Lang, 274 Ga. 122, 126) (2001);
3 See Cameron, supra, at 123(1)
FIFTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s Complaint against this individual Defendant must be dismissed as
a matter of law, because Defendant did not violate clearly established statutory
or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known and is
thus entitled to Qualified Immunity under Federal law.4
SIXTH DEFENSE
Defendant denies any discriminatory intent and further shows that
regardless of any alleged intent, Defendant would have taken the same actions
regarding Plaintiff.
SEVENTH DEFENSE
Defendant has not willfully violated any law or regulation and acted in good
faith at all times to comply with all applicable laws and regulations.
EIGHTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed as a matter of law, because all
actions taken Defendant with respect to Plaintiff’s allegations were based on
legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and unprejudiced reasons, and Defendant acted at
all times in a legitimate and nondiscriminatory manner.
4 Thomas vs. City of Jacksonville, 731 Fed. Appx. 877 at 880-881 at 2 (11th Cir. 2018) (citing Tolan vs. Cotton,
134 S. Ct. 1861, 1866 (2014))
NINTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims for equitable relief must be dismissed under the Doctrine
of Unclean Hands, because those who want equity should do equity.
TENTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Defendant must be dismissed, because the totality of Defendant’s actions fail to
constitute willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or that
entire want of care, which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference
to the consequences.
ELEVENTH DEFENSE – BAD FAITH FILING
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are brought with malice and lack
substantial justification in law or in fact. Plaintiff’s act of initiating litigation
against Defendant lacks the requisite evidentiary support, is not warranted by
existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for the extension, modification, or
reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law, and is interposed for
improper purposes, including, but not limited to, harassment and/or a needless
increase in the expense of litigation. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendant are brought in bad faith, and Defendant preserves all rights and
remedies under Federal and State law as to Plaintiff’s bad faith filing and herewith
gives notice to Plaintiff of his intent to seek redress once Plaintiff’s claims are
dismissed.
TWELFTH DEFENSE
The totality of Plaintiff’s action is brought with an improper and non-legal
purpose in that Plaintiff has announced his candidacy in the upcoming election for
the Office of the District Attorney for the Eastern District of Georgia against
Defendant Jones, and thus, Plaintiff’s action improperly seeks to provide Plaintiff
with an alternate platform to wage his political campaign and to allow Plaintiff to
claim immunity for anything alleged.
THIRTEENTH DEFENSE – MOTION to DISMISS (Partial)
Plaintiff’s claims for equitable relief must be dismissed, because Plaintiff’s
Complaint is neither positively verified nor supported by other satisfactory proofs
as required by O.C.G.A. § 9-10-110.
FOURTEENTH DEFENSE
Any of Plaintiff’s claims under O.C.G.A. § 45-1-4 that arose after March 21,
2022 must be dismissed, because former employees are not entitled to bring
claims under the Georgia Whistleblower Act for retaliation alleged to have
occurred subsequent to the conclusion of employment.5
FIFTEENTH DEFENSE
Subject to and without waiving any of the above-stated defenses,
Defendant responds to the individually-numbered paragraphs of Plaintiff’s
Complaint by stating the following:
I. Parties, Jurisdiction & Venue
1. Defendant is without information sufficient to enable Defendant to
admit or deny the truth of the allegations set forth within Paragraph 1 of
Plaintiff’s Complaint, and thus, by operation of law, the same are denied.
2. Defendant admits the allegations set forth within Paragraph 2 of
Plaintiff’s Complaint.
3. In response to the allegations set forth within Paragraph 3 of
Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant admits only that he is a citizen of the State of
Georgia and that he may be served with process at his residential address.
Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained within said Paragraph as
they are stated.
5 See Murray-Obertein v. Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission, 344
Ga.App. 677 (2018)
II. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
III. Facts – Mr. Burton’s Background
IV. The Joint Employment Relationship of Defendants6
14. Defendant admits the allegations contained within Paragraph 14 of
15. Upon present information and belief, Defendant denies the
allegations contained within Paragraph 15 of Plaintiff’s Complaint as they are
stated.
6 To the extent that this bolded and underlined “section headings” within Plaintiff’s recitation of facts is
itself aa substantive allegation of fact or contains substantive allegations, Defendant denies all allegations
contained within.
17. Defendant denies the allegations set forth within Paragraph 17 of
Plaintiff’s Complaint as pled therein.
Plaintiff’s Complaint. For further Answer, copies of the Chatham County
employment manual were hand delivered to staff members.
V. Defendant Jones’ History of Sex Discrimination7
admit or deny the truth of the allegations set forth within the first sentence of
Paragraph 24 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and thus, by operation of law, the same are
denied. For further Answer, Defendant admits the remaining allegations set forth
within Paragraph 24 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Plaintiff’s Complaint as they are stated therein. For further Answer, Defendant
denies the existence of a “Guns and Gangs” unit prosecutor position.
denies the existence of a “Guns and Gangs” unit prosecutor position. For further
contained within.
Answer, Defendant admits that Skye Musson did express interest in having some
“Guns and Gangs” cases assigned to her to prosecute.
denies that Skye Musson was ever terminated by Defendant Jones. Instead of
how Plaintiff has falsely pled this and other Paragraphs which mention the end of
Ms. Musson’s employment, Ms. Musson submitted her resignation in writing to
Defendant Jones.
VI. Mr. Burton was associated with Ms. Musson and was identified as a
potential witness in her favor regarding her sex discrimination
claims8
contained within.
Plaintiff’s Complaint as they are pled therein, and thus, by operation of law, the
same are denied.
Plaintiff’s Complaint. For further Answer, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant
lacked authority to terminate anyone’s employment.
56. In response to the allegations set forth within Paragraph 56 of
Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant admits only that he was aware that Plaintiff and
Ms. Musson had been trial partners. Defendant is without information sufficient
to enable Defendant to admit or deny the truth of the remaining allegations set
forth within Paragraph 56 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and thus, by operation of law,
the same are denied.
Plaintiff’s Complaint as they pertain to Defendant. For further Answer, Defendant
does not recall having seen Plaintiff and Ms. Musson “interacting with one
another in friendly manner” during the February 3, 2022 Savannah-Chatham Day
Event in Atlanta, Georgia.
lacked authority to terminate anyone’s employment.
VII. Despite being the most qualified candidate, Mr. Burton was not
selected for a promotion because of entrenched stereotypes about
sex and/or sexual orientation9
62. Defendant denies the allegations set forth within the first sentence
of Paragraph 62 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. For further Answer, Defendant denies
that he or anyone of which Defendant was aware ever “repeatedly and frequently
referred to Mr. Burton as a ‘bitch,’ both in his presence and when he was not
contained within.
present and made cruel remarks about Mr. Burton based on sex stereotypes
and/or because of his sexual orientation.”
63. Defendant admits the allegations set forth within the first sentence
of Paragraph 63 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Defendant is without information
sufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny the truth of the allegations set
forth within the second sentence of Paragraph 63 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and
thus, by operation of law, the same are denied. For further Answer, Defendant
shows that there was no new “position” of Lead Attorney created; rather, the
designation as Lead Attorney would have been a re-classification of an already-
employed ADA who was part of a team assigned to a particular Courtroom.
had no authority to make any selections as alleged by Plaintiff herein.
Plaintiff’s Complaint as they pertain to any familiarity or success relative to Judge
Abbot, and thus, by operation of law, the same are denied. For further Answer,
Defendant admits that Defendant Jones did not select Plaintiff for the position as
alleged. For still further Answer, Defendant denies all remaining allegations set
forth within Paragraph 65 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Plaintiff’s Complaint, and thus, by operation of law, the same are denied. For
further Answer, Defendant denies having any knowledge of “Mr. Stolfe and
subsequently higher-ranking members of the D.A.’s Office continued frequently
referring to Mr. Burton as a “bitch.” As Mr. Burton’s immediate supervisor, Mr.
Stolfe repeatedly called Mr. Burton a “bitch” both to Mr. Burton’s face and in front
of Mr. Burton’s co-workers.”
further Answer, Defendant denies any knowledge of any staff members being
referred to as a “bitch.”
further Answer, Defendant denies any knowledge of any staff members being
referred to as a “bitch.”
further Answer, Defendant denies having any knowledge of “a member of D.A.’s
Office management refer[ing] to both Mr. Burton and Ms. Roberts as “bitch[es]”
and suggest[ing] that they be paired with one another.”
VIII. Mr. Burton reports financial misconduct in the D.A.’s Office10
contained within.
further Answer, Defendant shows that Plaintiff never communicated his concern
“that sufficient funds would not be available to pay staff and carry on
prosecutions and investigations handled by the D.A.’s Office.” to Defendant or, to
Defendant’s knowledge, any of Plaintiff’s superiors at the D.A.’s Office.
Plaintiff’s Complaint. For further Answer, during the relevant time, Plaintiff was
the sole ADA assigned to prosecute civil asset forfeiture cases.
83. In response to Paragraph 83 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant
admits only that at all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was the sole attorney who
prosecuted civil asset forfeiture proceedings for the D.A.’s Office. For further
Answer, Defendant denies that Plaintiff was “concerned” or had any “concerns”
as alleged. For still further Answer, Defendant shows that after Plaintiff’s
employment ended, when the D.A.’s Office conducted an audit of Plaintiff’s civil
asset forfeiture files, only then did the D.A.’s Office learn that Plaintiff’s
mismanagement and shoddy prosecution of numerous civil forfeiture files
resulted in the D.A.’s Office not having recovered over one-hundred thousand
dollars in monies and property which the D.A.’s Office could have used in its
budget and operations. For still further Answer, within days after Plaintiff’s
termination, the D.A.’s Office discovered that Plaintiff had failed to file default
judgments on some two dozen cases with assets exceeding $100,000.00 and had
failed to file forfeiture complaints on at least 5 cases with assets of approximately
$50,000.00. Additionally, Plaintiff had not filed statutory notice in numerous
cases, jeopardizing the ability of the D.A.’s Office to collect monies and properties
therein. For still further Answer, Defendant asserts that any “concern” alleged by
Plaintiff or allegedly communicated by Plaintiff was a ruse and smokescreen
designed to cover up and duck responsibility for Plaintiff’s damaging
mismanagement of forfeiture files’ having deprived the D.A.’s Office of monies
and revenues it could have used in its budget and operations. Defendant is
without information sufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny the truth of
the remaining allegations set forth within Paragraph 83 of Plaintiff’s Complaint,
and thus, by operation of law, the same are denied.
84. Defendant denies that Plaintiff had any “concerns” as alleged in
Paragraph 84 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. For further Answer, Defendant shows that
after Plaintiff’s employment ended, when the D.A.’s Office conducted an audit of
Plaintiff’s civil asset forfeiture files, only then did the D.A.’s Office learn that
Plaintiff’s mismanagement and shoddy prosecution of numerous civil forfeiture
files resulted in the D.A.’s Office not having recovered over one-hundred
thousand dollars in monies and property which the D.A.’s Office could have used
in its budget and operations. For still further Answer, within days after Plaintiff’s
termination, the D.A.’s Office discovered that Plaintiff had failed to file default
judgments on some two dozen cases with assets exceeding $100,000.00 and had
failed to file forfeiture complaints on at least 5 cases with assets of approximately
$50,000.00. Additionally, Plaintiff had not filed statutory notice in numerous
cases, jeopardizing the ability of the D.A.’s Office to collect monies and properties
and revenues it could have used in its budget and operations. For still further
Answer, Defendant is without information sufficient to enable Defendant to
admit or deny the truth of the remaining allegations set forth within Paragraph 84
of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and thus, by operation of law, the same are denied.
Plaintiff’s Complaint, and thus, by operation of law, the same are denied. For still
further Answer, Defendant shows that after Plaintiff’s employment ended, when
the D.A.’s Office conducted an audit of Plaintiff’s civil asset forfeiture files, only
then did the D.A.’s Office learn that Plaintiff’s mismanagement and shoddy
prosecution of numerous civil forfeiture files resulted in the D.A.’s Office not
having recovered over one-hundred thousand dollars in monies and property
which the D.A.’s Office could have used in its budget and operations. For still
further Answer, within days after Plaintiff’s termination, the D.A.’s Office
discovered that Plaintiff had failed to file default judgments on some two dozen
cases with assets exceeding $100,000.00 and had failed to file forfeiture
complaints on at least 5 cases with assets of approximately $50,000.00.
Additionally, Plaintiff had not filed statutory notice in numerous cases,
jeopardizing the ability of the D.A.’s Office to collect monies and properties
and revenues it could have used in its budget and operations.
further Answer, Defendant asserts that any “concern” alleged by Plaintiff or
allegedly communicated by Plaintiff was a ruse and smokescreen designed to
cover up and duck responsibility for Plaintiff’s damaging mismanagement of
forfeiture files’ having deprived the D.A.’s Office of monies and revenues it could
have used in its general budget and operations.
Plaintiff’s Complaint as they pertain to Defendant.
IX. Mr. Burton was terminated for pretextual reasons11
contained within.
Paragraph 99 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and thus, by operation of law, the same are
denied. For further Answer, Defendant admits that, at the direction of D.A. Jones,
he called Plaintiff at some point on March 22, 2022 to notify Plaintiff that his
employment was terminated.
100. Upon present recollection and belief, Defendant admits the
allegations contained within the first sentence of Paragraph 100 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint. Defendant is without information sufficient to enable Defendant to
admit or deny the truth of the remaining allegations set forth within Paragraph
100 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and thus, by operation of law, the same are denied.
X. Defendants engaged in post-employment retaliation against Mr.

Burton12
103. Defendant denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 103 of
Plaintiff’s Complaint as they are stated. For further Answer, upon present
recollection and belief, Defendant shows that when Plaintiff’s employment with
the D.A.’s Office ended, Plaintiff was running for election for a judgeship on the
Chatham County Recorders’ Court, and it was only after Plaintiff finished last in
the initial election that Plaintiff announced his candidacy for the D.A. Position.
Among other things, Plaintiff posted a Facebook video on December 20, 2022,
during which he announced his candidacy for District Attorney and defamed
Defendant by maligning him as being a member of a “corrupt” administration, the
second in a series of defamatory statements Plaintiff made about Defendant
contained within.
either via video or Facebook post.
further Answer, Defendant remembers that WTOC released an investigative
report on the D.A.’s Office at some point in late 2022, but Defendant cannot recall
the specifics alleged herein by Plaintiff.
Paragraph 106 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and thus, by operation of law, the same
are denied. For further Answer, Defendant denies the allegations contained
within the second sentence of Paragraph 106 of Plaintiff’s Complaint as they are
pled, because upon information and belief, Plaintiff was being illegally provided
classified and non-public information by a “mole” or sympathizer within the D.A.’s
Office.
further Answer, upon information and belief, Plaintiff was being illegally provided
classified and non-public information by a “mole” or sympathizer within the D.A.’s
Office.
108. Defendant admits the allegations contained within the first sentence
of Paragraph 108 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. For further Answer, Defendant is
without information sufficient to enable Defendant to admit or deny the truth of
all remaining allegations set forth within Paragraph 108 of Plaintiff’s Complaint,
and thus, by operation of law, the same are denied.
109. Defendant admits the allegations contained within Paragraph 109 of
admit or deny the truth of the very unlikely and coincidental allegations set forth
within Paragraph 111 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and thus, by operation of law, the
same are denied.
Plaintiff’s Complaint as pled.
Plaintiff’s Complaint. Bar Complaint
COUNT ONE
Violation of the Georgia Whistleblower Act, O.C.G.A. § 45-1-4 against
Defendant Jones, in her official capacity, and Defendant Chatham County
119. Defendant incorporates by express reference all previously-stated
Defenses and allegations as if set forth hereinafter verbatim.
Plaintiff’s Complaint. Subsequent to March 21, 2022, Plaintiff ceased being a
public employee as defined by O.C.G.A. § 45-1-4.13
123. Upon present information and belief, Defendant admits the
allegations set forth within Paragraph 123 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
admit or deny the truth of the allegations as to phone calls set forth within
Paragraph 124 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and thus, by operation of law, the same
are denied. For further Answer, Defendant vehemently denies that he was
“engaging in fraud, waste, and/or abuse and not complying with the law, rules, or
regulations regarding expenditure of the D.A.’s Office’s general budget and in
failing to properly account for the proceeds of civil asset forfeitures.” or that he
had knowledge of anyone in the D.A.’s Office doing the same. For still further
Answer, Defendant shows that during the period of time alleged by Plaintiff in this
13 See Murray-Obertein v. Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission, 344
Ga.App. 677 (2018)
Paragraph, it was Plaintiff who was in charge of and handling the asset forfeitures
for the D.A.’s Office, so Plaintiff’s allegations are disingenuous and blatantly
misleading.
further Answer, Defendant vehemently denies that he was “engaging in fraud,
waste, and/or abuse and not complying with the law, rules, or regulations
regarding expenditure of the D.A.’s Office’s general budget and in failing to
properly account for the proceeds of civil asset forfeitures.” or that he had
knowledge of anyone in the D.A.’s Office doing the same.
COUNT TWO
Sex Discrimination – Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Against Defendant Jones, in her official capacity, and Defendant Chatham County
COUNT THREE
Title VII Retaliation
Against Defendant Jones, in her official capacity, and Defendant Chatham County
Plaintiff’s Complaint as they pertain to Defendant. For further Answer, Defendant
denies ever “subjecting Plaintiff to the adverse employment actions and post-
employment retaliation”.
Plaintiff’s Complaint that Defendant ever subjected Plaintiff to any adverse
actions complained of or that any action of Defendant was willful, deliberate, and
intended to cause Plaintiff harm, and/or was committed with reckless disregard
for alleged harm caused to Plaintiff and was in derogation of any federally
protected rights of Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s Complaint as they pertain to Plaintiff.
COUNT FOUR
First Amendment Retaliation, Asserted Through 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Against all Defendants
152. Upon present information and belief, Defendant admits the
allegations set forth within Paragraph 152 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Plaintiff’s Complaint as they pertain to the EEOC Charge, and thus, by operation of
law, the same are denied. For further Answer, Defendant denies that Plaintiff’s
January 23, 2023 Facebook posts concerning the criminal hearing were protected
by the First Amendment, because Plaintiff’s posts were dangerous, reckless and
irresponsible acts in that they publicly accused a defendant of being a gang
member, portrayed the crime as gang-related, and identified the victim’s family
members that were testifying against the (alleged by Plaintiff) gang member,
together having the cumulative effect of placing the victim’s family members at
risk of violent retribution. For still further Answer, Defendant shows that the
posts were a shameless attempt by Plaintiff, a member of the State Bar of
Georgia, an officer of the court, and an announced electoral candidate for the
D.A.’s Office, to promote himself and his electoral campaign at the expense of
endangering the lives of certain citizens and thus are wholly without the spectrum
of speech protected by the First Amendment or any law.
155. Defendant denies all allegations set forth within Paragraph 155 of
Plaintiff’s Complaint, including that Plaintiff’s January 23, 2023 Facebook posts
were constitutionally-protected speech and that Defendant disseminated false
allegations about Plaintiff to damage Plaintiff’s reputation within the D.A.’s Office
and the legal community.
Plaintiff’s Complaint. For further Answer, Defendant vehemently denies engaging
in “illegal sex discrimination and retaliation” and shows that the Bar Complaint
against Plaintiff referred to therein is absolutely privileged under GRPC 4-221.3
and was made in good faith and in accordance with the Georgia Rules of
Professional Conduct.
Plaintiff’s Complaint. For still further Answer, Defendant shows that the Bar
Complaint against Plaintiff referred to therein is absolutely privileged under GRPC
4-221.3 and was made in good faith and in accordance with the Georgia Rules of
Professional Conduct.
Plaintiff’s Complaint, including any allegation that Plaintiff’s January 23, 2023
Facebook posts were constitutionally-protected speech. For still further Answer,
Defendant vehemently denies ever retaliating against Plaintiff in any manner or
participating in any decision to so do and shows that the Bar Complaint against
Plaintiff referred to therein is absolutely privileged under GRPC 4-221.3 and was
made in good faith and in accordance with the Georgia Rules of Professional
Conduct.
Plaintiff’s Complaint. For further Answer, Defendant shows that the Bar
Complaint against Plaintiff referred to therein is absolutely privileged under GRPC
4-221.3 and was filed for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, made in good
faith, and made in accordance with the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct.
COUNT FIVE
Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, Pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983 – Discrimination on the
Basis of Sex
Against Defendant Chatham County and Defendant Jones in her
individual & official capacities
Plaintiff’s Complaint. For further Answer, Defendant had no authority to
designate Plaintiff as a Lead Attorney.
Plaintiff’s Complaint. For further Answer, Defendant had no authority to
terminate Plaintiff’s employment.
Plaintiff’s Complaint. For further Answer, Defendant had no authority to promote
or terminate Plaintiff and did not participate in any decision alleged.
Plaintiff’s Complaint. For further Answer, Defendant had no authority to promote
Plaintiff or terminate his employment.
COUNT SIX
Punitive Damages Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Against Defendants Jones and Edwards in their individual capacities
Plaintiff’s Complaint. For further Answer, all actions taken by Defendant in any
manner related to Plaintiff were in the course and scope of Defendant’s
employment with the D.A.’s Office in his Official Capacity as an Assistant District
Attorney for the Eastern Judicial Circuit of Georgia.
SIXTEENTH DEFENSE
All allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint that have not been admitted, denied
or otherwise responded to above are hereby denied.
SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE
Defendant shows that the responses contained within this Answer are
based upon all information currently available to Defendant and are interposed in
a good faith attempt to address and respond to all allegations within Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE
Defendant expressly reserves all rights to amend, supplement, and explain
the responses herein above as this case progresses.
WHEREFORE, Defendant EDWARDS prays that:
a. Plaintiff’s Complaint and claims against Defendant be dismissed with
prejudice;
b. all costs of Court and litigation be assessed against Plaintiff; and
c. after consideration of all facts and circumstances, this Honorable
Court will afford Defendant EDWARDS such other and further relief as is mete,
just, equitable, and appropriate under State and Federal law.
Respectfully submitted, this day, May 4, 2023.
GANNAM, GNANN & STEINMETZ, LLC
/s C.J. Steinmetz III

Post Office Box 10085 By: CHRISTIAN J. STEINMETZ III
Savannah, Georgia 31412-0285 Georgia Bar No. 278260
Tel: 912.232.1192
Email: cjs@ggsattorneys.com ATTORNEYS for DEFENDANT EDWARDS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This certifies that I have served a copy of the foregoing on:
Anita K. Balasubramanian, Esq. G. Todd Carter, Esq.

J. Kyle Brooks, Esq. 5 Glynn Ave.
Buckley, Bala, Wilson, Mew LLP Brunswick, GA 31520
600 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 3900 tcarter@brbcsw.com
Atlanta, GA 30308 FOR DEFENDANT JONES
abala@bbwmlaw.com
kbrooks@bbwmlaw.com
FOR PLAINTIFF
R.J. Hart, Esq.

Reginald Martin, Esq.
POB 8161
Savannah, GA 31412
rjhart@chathamcounty.org
RMartin@chathamcounty.org
by causing a copy to be served as follows:
 deposited in the United States Mail, sufficient postage prepaid,

 hand delivered;
 sent via fax transmission;
 sent via electronic service to the address above
 via ECF Electronic Filing
on this day, May 4, 2023.

GANNAM, GNANN & STEINMETZ, LLC
/s C.J. Steinmetz III

Post Office Box 10085 By: CHRISTIAN J. STEINMETZ III
Savannah, Georgia 31412-0285 Georgia Bar No. 278260
Tel: 912.232.1192
Fax: 912.238.9917 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
Email: cjs@ggsattorneys.com MICHAEL L. EDWARDS

Michael Edwards Answer To Anthony Burton Civil Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Michael Edwards Answer To Anthony Burton Civil Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 4:23-cv-00111-WTM-CLR Document 8 Filed 05/04/23 Page 1 of 45

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

BURT ANTHONY BURTON, Plaintiff | Civil Action No.

SHALENA COOK JONES, in her Defendants | CV423-111

ANSWER of DEFENDANT, MICHAEL L. EDWARDS

MICHAEL L. EDWARDS, a Defendant above (“Defendant”) by and through

the Southern District of Georgia, herewith ANSWERS Plaintiff’s Complaint by

showing the following:

granted and thus must be dismissed as a matter of law.

SECOND DEFENSE – MOTION to DISMISS

Bar Complaint against Plaintiff in January of 2023, they must be dismissed,

Plaintiff’s counsel’s artful nomenclature notwithstanding, Plaintiff’s Claims

must be dismissed as a matter of law.2

Plaintiff’s Complaint against this individual Defendant must be dismissed as

performance of official duties and not in his individual capacity. Defendant is

therefore entitled to the defense of Official Immunity.3

Plaintiff’s Complaint against this individual Defendant must be dismissed as

or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known and is

thus entitled to Qualified Immunity under Federal law.4

Defendant denies any discriminatory intent and further shows that

Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed as a matter of law, because all

actions taken Defendant with respect to Plaintiff’s allegations were based on

legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and unprejudiced reasons, and Defendant acted at

all times in a legitimate and nondiscriminatory manner.

of Unclean Hands, because those who want equity should do equity.

Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

Defendant must be dismissed, because the totality of Defendant’s actions fail to

constitute willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or that

ELEVENTH DEFENSE – BAD FAITH FILING

substantial justification in law or in fact. Plaintiff’s act of initiating litigation

against Defendant lacks the requisite evidentiary support, is not warranted by

existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for the extension, modification, or

increase in the expense of litigation. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against

The totality of Plaintiff’s action is brought with an improper and non-legal

claim immunity for anything alleged.

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE – MOTION to DISMISS (Partial)

Plaintiff’s claims for equitable relief must be dismissed, because Plaintiff’s

Complaint is neither positively verified nor supported by other satisfactory proofs

as required by O.C.G.A. § 9-10-110.

occurred subsequent to the conclusion of employment.5

Subject to and without waiving any of the above-stated defenses,

Defendant responds to the individually-numbered paragraphs of Plaintiff’s

Complaint by stating the following:

I. Parties, Jurisdiction & Venue

1. Defendant is without information sufficient to enable Defendant to

2. Defendant admits the allegations set forth within Paragraph 2 of

3. In response to the allegations set forth within Paragraph 3 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant admits only that he is a citizen of the State of

Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained within said Paragraph as

they are stated.

4. Defendant admits the allegations set forth within Paragraph 4 of

5. Defendant admits the allegations set forth within Paragraph 5 of

6. Defendant admits the allegations set forth within Paragraph 6 of

II. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

7. Defendant is without information sufficient to enable Defendant to

III. Facts – Mr. Burton’s Background

8. Defendant is without information sufficient to enable Defendant to

9. Defendant is without information sufficient to enable Defendant to

10. Defendant is without information sufficient to enable Defendant to

11. Defendant is without information sufficient to enable Defendant to

12. Defendant is without information sufficient to enable Defendant to

13. Defendant is without information sufficient to enable Defendant to

IV. The Joint Employment Relationship of Defendants6