1

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ANTHONY BERNARD MOORER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2:06cv672-WKW

)

CITY OF MONTGOMERY; )

BERNARD HARRIS, individually; and )

THOMAS PROVITT, individually, )

)

)

Defendants. )

ANSWER

Pursuant to this Court’s Order of February 9, 2007, Defendants City of Montgomery

(“the City”), Bernard Harris, individually (“Harris”), and Thomas Provitt, individually

(“Provitt”), as Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint and Show Cause Motion to Amend the Complaint

state unto the Court the following:

1. Defendants deny all allegations set out in Plaintiff’s Complaint and Show Cause

Motion to Amend the Complaint.

2. Defendants deny all claims of racial discrimination and demand strict proof

thereof.

3. Defendants deny all claims of due process violations and demand strict proof

thereof.

4. Defendants deny all claims of failure to train and demand strict proof thereof.

Case 2:06-cv-00672-WKW-WC Document 15 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 1 of 4
2

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants assert that the Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can

be granted.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants plead the general issue.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants deny all material allegations not specifically admitted and demand strict

proof thereof.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants assert that Plaintiff has failed to state any adverse employment action or

damages caused by Defendants which violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights or for which any

relief can be granted.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants assert that Plaintiff has failed to state any custom or policy of Defendants

which violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights or for which any relief can be granted.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants plead substantive, qualified and/or discretionary function immunity.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants plead insufficiency of service of process and insufficiency of process.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Case 2:06-cv-00672-WKW-WC Document 15 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 2 of 4
3

Defendants plead that Plaintiff is not entitled to any award of damages.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

To the extent applicable, Defendants plead that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the

applicable statute of limitations.

RESERVATION OF DEFENSES

Defendants reserve the right to plead additional defenses as they become known in the

course of discovery.

Respectfully submitted this the 9

th

day of March, 2007.

/s/Michael D. Boyle_________

Michael D. Boyle (BOY032)

Attorney for Defendants

OF COUNSEL:

Legal Department

City of Montgomery

Post Office Box 1111

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-1111

(334) 241-2050

(334) 241-2310 (fax)

Case 2:06-cv-00672-WKW-WC Document 15 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 3 of 4
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have mailed a copy of the above and foregoing Answer to the

following by electronic mail or placing a copy of same in the United States Mail, postage,

prepaid, this 9

th

day of March, 2007:

Anthony Moorer

4240 Green Meadow Drive

Montgomery, AL 36108

/s/ Michael D. Boyle

Of Counsel

Case 2:06-cv-00672-WKW-WC Document 15 Filed 03/09/2007 Page 4 of 4