Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ROBERT GENE WELLS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 5:21-cv-00019

TOMMY FORD, in his official capacity as

SHERIFF of BAY COUNTY, and RICK ANGLIN,

In his supervisor capacity

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________

DEFENDANT SHERIFF’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendant, Sheriff Tommy Ford, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Bay County, 

Florida, (hereinafter, “Sheriff”), hereby files his Answer and Defenses to Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint [ECF 13] and states:

1. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only. The remainder of the 

allegation is denied.

2. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only. The remainder of the 

allegation is denied.

3. Without knowledge; therefore, denied. 

4. Admitted.

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 17 Filed 03/05/21 Page 1 of 17
Page 2 of 17

5. Admitted that at all relevant and material time, Defendant, Anglin, 

has been an employee of the Sheriff. The remainder of the allegation is 

denied.

6. Without knowledge; therefore, denied.

7. Without knowledge; therefore, denied.

8. Without knowledge; therefore, denied.

9. Without knowledge; therefore, denied.

10. Without knowledge; therefore, denied.

11. Without knowledge; therefore, denied.

12. Without knowledge; therefore, denied.

13. Without knowledge; therefore, denied.

14. Without knowledge; therefore, denied.

15. Denied.

16. Denied.

17. Without knowledge; therefore, denied.

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 17 Filed 03/05/21 Page 2 of 17
Page 3 of 17

18. Admitted that there is a video that depicts an incident involving 

the Plaintiff while he was incarcerated at the Bay County Jail. As to the 

remainder of the allegation, denied. 

19. Without knowledge; therefore, denied.

20. Admitted that a probable cause affidavit was prepared by Marc 

Bailey. As to the remainder of the allegation, without knowledge; therefore, 

denied.

21. Denied.

22. Denied.

23. Denied.

24. Denied.

25. Denied.

COUNT I – DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE FAILURE TO PROTECT –

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT 

26. The Sheriff realleges and incorporates by reference his answers 

to Paragraphs 1 – 25 above.

27. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only. The remainder of this 

allegation is denied.

28. Denied.

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 17 Filed 03/05/21 Page 3 of 17
Page 4 of 17

29. Denied.

30. Denied.

31. Denied.

32. Denied.

33. Denied.

34. Denied.

35. Denied.

36. Denied.

37. Denied.

38. Denied.

39. Denied.

40. Denied.

41. Denied.

42. Denied.

43. Denied.

COUNT II – DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE FAILURE TO PROTECTFOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (against Anglin as the supervisor over the 

jail)

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 17 Filed 03/05/21 Page 4 of 17
Page 5 of 17

44.-57. Contemporaneous with the filing of the Sheriff’s Answer 

and Defenses, the Defendant, Rick Anglin, is filing a Motion to Dismiss 

Counts II and IV of the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. To the extent, if any, 

Plaintiff attempts to assert a claim against the Sheriff in Count II, these 

allegations are denied.

COUNT III – DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO MEDICAL NEEDS –

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (against Defendant Sheriff)

58. The Sheriff realleges and incorporates by reference his answers 

to Paragraphs 1 – 25 above. 

59. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only. The remainder of this 

allegation is denied.

60. Denied.

61. Denied.

62. Denied.

63. Denied.

64. Denied.

65. Denied.

66. Denied.

67. Denied.

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 17 Filed 03/05/21 Page 5 of 17
Page 6 of 17

68. Denied.

69. Denied.

70. Denied.

71. Denied.

72. Denied.

73. Denied.

74. Denied.

75. Denied.

COUNT IV – DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO MEDICAL NEEDSFOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (against Anglin)

76.-88. Contemporaneous with the filing of the Sheriff’s Answer 

and Defenses, the Defendant, Rick Anglin, is filing a Motion to Dismiss 

Counts II and IV of the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. To the extent, if any, 

Plaintiff attempts to assert a claim against the Sheriff in Count II, these 

allegations are denied.

COUNT V –

COMMON LAW NEGLIGENT TRAINING

(against Defendant Sheriff)

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 17 Filed 03/05/21 Page 6 of 17
Page 7 of 17

89. The Sheriff realleges and incorporates by reference his answers 

to Paragraphs 1 – 25 above. 

90. Admitted that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint attempts to allege a 

cause of action against the Sheriff based upon common law negligent 

training. The remainder of this allegation is denied.

91. Denied.

92. Denied.

93. Denied.

94. Denied.

COUNT VI –

COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE

(against Defendant Sheriff)

95. The Sheriff realleges and incorporates by reference his answers 

to Paragraphs 1 – 25 above. 

96. Admitted that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint attempts to allege a 

cause of action against the Sheriff based upon common law negligence. 

The remainder of this allegation is denied.

97. Denied.

98. Denied.

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 17 Filed 03/05/21 Page 7 of 17
Page 8 of 17

99. Denied.

100. Denied.

101. Denied.

102. Denied.

103. Denied.

COUNT VII 

VIOLATIONS OF TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

(Against Defendant Sheriff)

104. The Sheriff realleges and incorporates by reference his answers 

to Paragraphs 1 – 25 above.

105. Denied.

106. Denied.

107. Denied.

108. Admitted.

109. Without knowledge; therefore, denied.

110. Without knowledge; therefore, denied.

111. Denied.

112. Denied.

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 17 Filed 03/05/21 Page 8 of 17
Page 9 of 17

113. Denied.

114. Denied.

115. Denied.

116. Denied.

117. Denied.

118. Denied.

119. Denied.

120. Denied.

121. Denied.

122. Denied.

DEFENSES

1. The Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to state a cause of action 

against the Sheriff.

2. No alleged acts or omissions of the Sheriff rose to the level of 

deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights as Plaintiff attempts 

to allege in Counts I and III of the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 17 Filed 03/05/21 Page 9 of 17
Page 10 of 17

3. None of the complained-of actions were due to any custom, 

policy, or practice of the Sheriff, nor were they undertaken by anyone with 

final decision-making authority.

4. The Sheriff cannot be held liable on Plaintiff’s §1983 claim under 

a theory of Respondeat Superior.

5. Plaintiff has failed to plead any causal relationship between any 

action by the Sheriff or his agents and any deprivation of Plaintiff’s civil or 

constitutional rights.

6. No history of widespread abuse existed at the date of the 

incident in question sufficient to put the Sheriff on notice of the likelihood of 

any failure to follow written policies or constitutional violations.

7. Plaintiff has not pled nor can he prove that the Sheriff was on 

notice of any patterns, practices, customs, policies, or procedures that 

deprived or had the potential to deprive Plaintiff of any civil or constitutional 

rights.

8. Plaintiff has failed to plead that the Sheriff had any actual or 

constructive notice of a serious medical need and failed to take timely 

appropriate action.

9. The Sheriff has not promoted any policies, nor engaged in any 

practices or patterns of behavior, which would have made the alleged 

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 17 Filed 03/05/21 Page 10 of 17
Page 11 of 17

incident more likely to occur, or which condoned or approved of any alleged 

improper action taken on the part of any party hereto.

10. The conduct of the Sheriff’s agents was not the proximate cause 

of any injury to the Plaintiff and any injury to the Plaintiff was caused wholly 

or in part by actions or omissions of the Plaintiff or other third parties.

11. Even if the allegations in the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint were 

true, such allegations reflect nothing more than mere negligence for which 

the Sheriff cannot be held liable under §1983.

12. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages.

13. Plaintiff’s claims in Counts V and VI are subject to the limits of 

liability set forth in §768.28(5), Florida Statutes.

14. As to Counts V and VI, to the extent, if any, that any actions of 

the agents of the Sheriff were willful, wanton, or malicious, the Sheriff is 

entitled to Sovereign Immunity from any state law tort claims pursuant to 

§768.28(9), Florida Statutes.

15. The Sheriff is entitled to a set-off of any damages due to 

collateral sources.

16. To the extent that Plaintiff is asserting a claim for medical 

negligence in Counts V and VI, Plaintiff has failed to plead satisfaction of the 

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 17 Filed 03/05/21 Page 11 of 17
Page 12 of 17

pre-suit notice and procedural requirements of Chapter 766, Florida 

Statutes.

17. As to Counts V and VI, to the extent that Plaintiff’s own 

negligence was the proximate cause of any damages allegedly sustained, 

Plaintiff’s recovery should be diminished comparatively with the degree of 

Plaintiff’s own negligence.

18. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover attorney’s fees on his claims set 

forth in Count Counts V and VI.

19. None of the complained-of actions were due to any custom, 

policy, or practice of the Sheriff, nor were they undertaken by anyone with 

final decision-making authority. Likewise, the Sheriff has not promoted any 

policies, nor engaged in any practices or patterns of behavior, which would 

have made the alleged incident more likely to occur, or which condoned or 

approved of any alleged improper action taken on the part of any party 

hereto.

20. Plaintiff was provided with reasonable medical care and 

treatment.

21. Plaintiff has failed to identify and establish any lack of training or 

supervision which was a legal cause of any of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries or 

damages.

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 17 Filed 03/05/21 Page 12 of 17
Page 13 of 17

22. Plaintiff has failed to identify any notice to the Sheriff regarding 

any lack of training or supervision that could result in injuries to the Plaintiff 

or any deprivation of civil or constitutional rights.

23. As to the state law claims the actions of Sheriff’s employees did 

not create a foreseeable zone of risk.

24. As to the state law claims the Sheriff owed no duty of care to 

Plaintiff individually to properly train or supervise its employees.

25. To the extent, if any, that the Plaintiff seeks to hold the Sheriff 

liable on the basis of supervisory liability, the Sheriff is not liable because a 

reasonable person, under the circumstances, would not know that the 

conduct alleged infringed on any constitutional right of the Plaintiff and that 

his or her conduct was causally related to any constitutional violation 

committed by any subordinates. 

26. The Sheriff cannot be liable for negligent training and supervising 

any employees of the Sheriff because such actions are policy-making 

activities and immune from suit under the sovereign immunity provisions of 

Section 768.28, Florida Statutes.

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 17 Filed 03/05/21 Page 13 of 17
Page 14 of 17

27. To the extent, if any, that Plaintiff's negligence was the proximate 

cause of any damages allegedly sustained, Plaintiff's recovery should be 

diminished comparatively with the degree of Plaintiff's own negligence.

28. No alleged acts or omissions of the Sheriff rose to the level of 

deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

29. Plaintiff has failed to plead that the Sheriff had any actual or 

constructive notice of any deficiency in any policy or procedure which could 

cause a violation of the Plaintiff’s rights.

30. The Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against the 

Sheriff for negligent training in that the Plaintiff has failed to plead any facts 

to prove that the Sheriff was negligent in the implementation or undertaking 

of any training program.

31. No history of widespread abuse existed at the date of the 

incident in question sufficient to put the Sheriff on notice of the likelihood of 

any civil or constitutional violations.

32. With regard to the state law claims, to the extent that Plaintiff’s 

alleged injuries were caused by the criminal acts of any third party, any noneconomic damages suffered by Plaintiff should be reduced by the pro rata 

share of fault attributable to that party. In accordance with case law and 

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 17 Filed 03/05/21 Page 14 of 17
Page 15 of 17

statutory provisions, the Sheriff informs Plaintiff that the third parties known 

at this time are Travis Bell and Diontez McCoy who were at all times 

inmates. 

33. The actions described in the complaint are criminal acts by 

Travis Bell, said criminal acts serve as an intervening and superseding 

cause breaking the chain of causation as to any liability attributable to the 

Sheriff. 

34. The Sheriff owed no duty of care to Plaintiff with respect to the 

criminal act committed by a third party.

35. The Sheriff did not know or have reason to know of any fact or 

circumstance which would have altered the conditions of confinement of 

Plaintiff which exposed Plaintiff to any danger or risk of injury not otherwise 

inherent in his confinement. 

36. The classification and placement of inmates is a discretionary 

planning level function of the Sheriff to which sovereign immunity applies. 

37. Plaintiff has failed to plead any facts which would support a claim 

that the Sheriff was on notice to any need for training and deliberately 

indifferent to the need for training by choosing to deliberately not take action 

to train in areas where known or obvious consequences existed. 

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 17 Filed 03/05/21 Page 15 of 17
Page 16 of 17

38. “In order to state a Title II claim, a plaintiff generally must prove 

(1) that he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) that he was either 

excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of a public entity’s 

services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by 

the public entity; and (3) that the exclusion, denial of benefit, or 

discrimination was by reason of the plaintiff’s disability.” Bircoll v. MiamiDade Cty., 480 F.3d 1072, 1083 (11th Cir.2007) (citing 42 U.S.C. §12132). 

Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for the Sheriff’s alleged violation 

of the ADA.

39. A necessary prerequisite to a successful claim under Title II is 

that a disabled person be denied the benefits of a service, program, or 

activity by the public entity that provides such service, program, or activity. 

Hainze v. Richards, 207 F.3d 795 (5th Cir.2000). Plaintiff has failed to meet 

this prerequisite.

Demand for Jury Trial

Defendant Sheriff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

DATED this 5th day of March 2021.

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 17 Filed 03/05/21 Page 16 of 17
Page 17 of 17

WARNER LAW FIRM, P. A.

/s/ Jennifer Hawkins

JENNIFER HAWKINS

Florida Bar No. 17694

501 W. 11th St. Suite A

Panama City, FL 32401

Phone No. (850) 784-7772

pleadings@warnerlaw.us

Counsel for Defendants,

Ford and Anglin

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was filed via CM/ECF

this 5th day of March 2021, which will send notice to all counsel of record. 

/s/ Jennifer Hawkins

JENNIFER HAWKINS

Florida Bar No. 17694

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 17 Filed 03/05/21 Page 17 of 17