IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ARTHUR JAMES TIGNER, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Civil Action No. 3:06-cv-00713-MHT-SRW 

 ) 

OFFICER SELLER, et al. ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER

COME NOW Jay Jones1

, Sheriff of Lee County, Alabama, Sergeant Timothy Jones2, 

Corrections Officer David Sellers3, and Corrections Officer Danny Tucker, the Defendants in the 

above-styled cause, and answer the Plaintiff’s Complaint as follows: 

Answer

The Defendants deny each and every allegation made by the Plaintiff Arthur James 

Tigner and demand strict proof thereof. The Defendants deny that they acted, or caused anyone 

to act, in such a manner so as to deprive the Plaintiff of his constitutional rights. 

Affirmative Defenses

1. The Plaintiff’s Complaint, separately and severally, fails to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted. 

2. The Defendants in this action, in their individual capacities, are entitled to 

qualified immunity from the Plaintiff’s claims. 

 

1

 Sheriff Jay Jones is incorrectly designated in the Plaintiff’s Complaint as “Sheriff J. Jone.” 2

 Sergeant Timothy Jones is incorrectly designated in the Plaintiff’s Complaint as “Sgt. Jone.” 

3

 Corrections Officer David Sellers is incorrectly designated in the Plaintiff’s Complaint as “Officer Seller.”

Case 3:06-cv-00713-MHT-SRW Document 11 Filed 11/06/2006 Page 1 of 3
2

3. The Defendants in this matter, in their official capacities, are entitled to absolute 

immunity from the Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment to the United States 

Constitution. 

4. Defendants in their official capacities are not “persons” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

5. The Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act because he 

has failed to exhaust available administrative remedies and because he has not suffered an injury 

that is greater than de minimus. 

6. Plaintiff fails to allege any affirmative causal link between the alleged acts of 

Defendants and any alleged constitutional deprivation or Defendants’ direct participation in any 

alleged constitutional violation. 

7. The Defendants are not liable based upon respondeat superior theories of 

liability. 

8. The Plaintiff cannot prove a violation of his rights under the Eighth or Fourteenth 

Amendments to the United States Constitution. 

9. The Defendants were not deliberately indifferent in any respect. 

10. The Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief are moot, and the Plaintiff lacks 

standing to pursue claims for injunctive relief. 

11. The Plaintiff has failed to allege facts showing that the Defendants acted with 

“reckless or callous indifference” to the Plaintiff as to support a claim of punitive damages. 

12. Defendants reserve the right to add additional defenses upon a complete 

investigation of Plaintiff’s claims, completion of any discovery allowed, and if any further 

pleading is required or allowed by the Court. 

Respectfully submitted this 6th day of November, 2006. 

Case 3:06-cv-00713-MHT-SRW Document 11 Filed 11/06/2006 Page 2 of 3
3

s/Amanda Kay Morgan 

AMANDA KAY MORGAN Bar No. ALL079 

Attorney for Defendants 

WEBB & ELEY, P.C. 

7475 Halcyon Pointe Drive 

Post Office Box 240909 

Montgomery, Alabama 36124 

Telephone: (334) 262-1850 

Fax: (334) 262-1889 

E-mail: amorgan@webbeley.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on this the 6th day of November, 2006, I have electronically filed the 

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, and that I have mailed a true 

and correct copy of the foregoing by United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following nonCM/ECF participant: 

Arthur James Tigner 

AIS 152184 

Bullock Correctional Facility 

PO Box 5107 

Union Springs, AL 36089-5107 

 s/Amanda Kay Morgan 

 OF COUNSEL 

Case 3:06-cv-00713-MHT-SRW Document 11 Filed 11/06/2006 Page 3 of 3