Page 1 of 11

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 ANGLIN’S AMENDED ANSWER AND DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendant, Rick Anglin, in his supervisor capacity, hereby files his Amended Answer 

and Defenses to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [ECF 13, Count II] 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 24 Filed 07/02/21 Page 1 of 11
Page 2 of 11

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 24 Filed 07/02/21 Page 2 of 11
Page 3 of 11

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 (Sheriff)

26. – 43. Plaintiff’s allegations set forth in paragraphs 26 through 43

pertain to a claim asserted against Defendant Sheriff only, therefore 

Defendant Anglin is not required to respond. However, to the extent, if any, 

that the Plaintiffs are attempting to assert a claim against Defendant Anglin 

in this Count, these allegations are denied.

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 24 Filed 07/02/21 Page 3 of 11
Page 4 of 11

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

jail)

44. Defendant Anglin realleges and incorporates by reference his 

answers to Paragraphs 1-25 above. 

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

allegation is denied.

46. Denied.

47. Denied.

48. Denied.

49. Denied.

50. Denied.

51. Denied.

52. Denied.

53. Denied.

54. Denied.

55. Denied.

56. Denied.

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 24 Filed 07/02/21 Page 4 of 11
Page 5 of 11

57. Denied.

COUNT III – DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO MEDICAL NEEDS –

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (against Defendant Sheriff)

58. – 75. Plaintiff’s allegations set forth at paragraphs 58 through 75

pertain to a claim asserted against Defendant Sheriff only, therefore 

Defendant Anglin is not required to respond. However, to the extent, if any, 

that the Plaintiffs are attempting to assert a claim against Defendant Anglin 

in this Count, these allegations are denied.

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

76.-88. This Count was dismissed by Order of the Court. [ECF. No. 

22].

COUNT V –

COMMON LAW NEGLIGENT TRAINING

(against Defendant Sheriff)

89. - 94. Plaintiff’s allegations set forth in paragraphs 89 through 94 

pertain to a claim asserted against Defendant Sheriff only, therefore 

Defendant Anglin is not required to respond. However, to the extent, if any, 

that the Plaintiffs are attempting to assert a claim against Defendant Anglin 

in this Count, these allegations are denied.

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 24 Filed 07/02/21 Page 5 of 11
Page 6 of 11

COUNT VI –

COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE

(against Defendant Sheriff)

95. - 103. Plaintiff’s allegations set forth in paragraphs 95 through 103

pertain to a claim asserted against Defendant Sheriff only, therefore 

Defendant Anglin is not required to respond. However, to the extent, if any, 

that the Plaintiffs are attempting to assert a claim against Defendant Anglin 

in this Count, these allegations are denied.

COUNT VII

VIOLATIONS OF TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

(Against Defendant Sheriff)

104. - 122. Plaintiff’s allegations set forth in paragraphs 104 through 

122 pertain to a claim asserted against Defendant Sheriff only, therefore 

Defendant Anglin is not required to respond. However, to the extent, if any, 

that the Plaintiffs are attempting to assert a claim against Defendant Anglin 

in this Count, these allegations are denied.

DEFENSES

1. Anglin does not have final policymaking authority at the Bay 

County Jail.

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

against Anglin.

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 24 Filed 07/02/21 Page 6 of 11
Page 7 of 11

3. No alleged acts or omissions of Anglin rose to the level of 

deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights as Plaintiff attempts 

to allege in Count II of the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

4. Anglin did not participate in any unconstitutional conduct which 

caused injury to the Plaintiff.

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

policy, or practice of Anglin, in his supervisory capacity, which resulted in 

deliberate indifference arising from a failure to protect Plaintiff.

6. Anglin was not subjectively aware that Plaintiff was vulnerable to 

attack due to his disabilities.

7. Anglin was not subjectively aware that Inmate Bell and Inmate 

McCoy had plans or an “agenda” to harm Plaintiff. 

8. Anglin cannot be held liable on Plaintiff’s §1983 claim under a 

theory of Respondeat Superior.

9. Plaintiff has failed to establish any causal relationship between 

any action by Anglin and any deprivation of Plaintiff’s civil or constitutional 

rights.

10. Plaintiff has not pled nor can he prove Anglin 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.

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 24 Filed 07/02/21 Page 7 of 11
Page 8 of 11

11. Anglin 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.

12. The conduct of Anglin’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.

13. The actions of Anglin do not rise to the level of culpability 

required to establish deliberate indifference under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

14. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages.

15. Anglin is entitled to a set-off of any damages due to collateral 

sources.

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

policy, or practice of Anglin, as he is not the final policymaker, nor were they 

undertaken by anyone with final decision-making authority. Likewise, the 

Anglin, in his supervisory capacity, 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.

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 24 Filed 07/02/21 Page 8 of 11
Page 9 of 11

17. To the extent that the Plaintiff seeks to hold Anglin liable on the 

basis of supervisory liability, Anglin 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. 

18. Plaintiff has failed to plead that Anglin had any actual or 

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

cause a violation of the Plaintiff’s rights, nor that he had any control over the 

policy or procedure, as Anglin is not the final policymaker.

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

incident in question sufficient to put Anglin, in his supervisory capacity, on 

notice of the likelihood of any civil or constitutional violations.

20. The actions described in the complaint are criminal acts by Bell

and/or McCoy, said criminal acts serve as an intervening and superseding 

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

Anglin. 

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 24 Filed 07/02/21 Page 9 of 11
Page 10 of 11

21. Plaintiff has failed to plead that Anglin had actual knowledge of 

prior PREA complaints with regard to Bell and or/McCoy involving any other 

inmate and or involving the Plaintiff. 

22. Anglin owed no duty of care to Plaintiff with respect to the 

criminal act committed by a third party.

23. Anglin 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. 

24. The classification and placement of inmates is a discretionary 

planning level function of the Sheriff/Anglin (in his supervisory capacity) to 

which sovereign immunity applies. Again, Anglin is not the final policymaker, 

that role is reserved for the Sheriff.

25. Anglin is immune from liability based upon the doctrine of 

qualified immunity. 

26. Plaintiff lacks the capacity to bring suit and proceed with litigation 

based on incompetence. See Rule 17, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

27. Plaintiff lacks standing. 

Demand for Jury Trial

Case 5:21-cv-00019-TKW-MJF Document 24 Filed 07/02/21 Page 10 of 11
Page 11 of 11

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

DATED this 2nd day of July 2021.

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 2nd day of July 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 24 Filed 07/02/21 Page 11 of 11