DEFENDANTS KENNETH FRANCIS AND ROGER ANDREW RUDLOFF’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 1

Bret Poat v. Jason Scroggins, et al., Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-2516-G (ECF) 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

BRET POAT, § 

 § 

 Plaintiff, § 

 § 

v. § 

 § 

JASON SCROGGINS, MATTHEW § CIVIL ACTION NO. 

KOBE, KENNETH FRANCIS, ROGER § 

ANDREW RUDLOFF and § 3:05-CV-2516-G 

ADDITIONAL DALLAS POLICE § ECF

DEPARTMENT OFFICERS TO BE § 

NAMED ONCE THEIR IDENTITIES § 

ARE DETERMINED, § 

 § 

 Defendants. § 

DEFENDANTS KENNETH FRANCIS AND ROGER ANDREW RUDLOFF’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 

Defendants Kenneth Francis (“Francis”) and Roger Andrew Rudloff (“Rudloff”) 

(collectively, “Defendants”), pursuant to Rules 4, 8, and 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, file the following answer in response to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Damages 

(“Complaint”), and respectfully show as follows: 

I. 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1.1 The first unnumbered paragraph of the Complaint contains no allegations of fact 

to which an answer is required. 

1.2 The first numbered paragraph of the Complaint, under the heading “Introduction,” 

contains several propositions of law to which no answer is required; however, to the extent an 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 6 Filed 02/28/06 Page 1 of 9 PageID 36
DEFENDANTS KENNETH FRANCIS AND ROGER ANDREW RUDLOFF’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 2

Bret Poat v. Jason Scroggins, et al., Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-2516-G (ECF) 

answer is required, Defendants admit that they are police officers of the City of Dallas and that 

this is an action for money damages brought against them in their individual capacities pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States 

Constitution, and Texas common law. 

1.3 Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Complaint and 

further state that the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s pendent state 

law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Defendants, however, deny that Plaintiff has stated a 

claim upon which relief can be granted or that Plaintiff is entitled to any recovery against them. 

1.4 Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 

1.5 Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Complaint. 

1.6 Defendants admit the factual allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the 

Complaint, except that Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the vague and ambiguous allegation that Plaintiff was “of full age.” 

1.7 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the factual allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Complaint to the extent they 

pertain to all “Defendant Officers,” which by Plaintiff’s definition includes unidentified 

“additional Dallas Police Department officers.” To the extent the allegations pertain to those 

police officers that have been specifically identified in Plaintiff’s pleadings, namely, Jason 

Scoggins, Matthew Kobe, Kenneth Francis and Roger Andrew Rudloff, Defendants admit that 

these individuals were at all times relevant to the incident giving rise to the Complaint duly 

appointed and acting officers of the City of Dallas police department and that they were acting 

under color of law, to wit, under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs 

and usages of the City of Dallas. 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 6 Filed 02/28/06 Page 2 of 9 PageID 37
DEFENDANTS KENNETH FRANCIS AND ROGER ANDREW RUDLOFF’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 3

Bret Poat v. Jason Scroggins, et al., Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-2516-G (ECF) 

1.8 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the factual allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Complaint. 

1.9 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the factual allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Complaint. 

1.10 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the factual allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Complaint. 

1.11 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the factual allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Complaint. 

1.12 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the factual allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Complaint. 

 1.13 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the factual allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Complaint. 

 1.14 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the factual allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the Complaint. 

 1.15 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the factual allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the Complaint. 

1.16 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the factual allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the Complaint, except that 

Defendants admit that when they arrived at the scene Plaintiff was seated and handcuffed and he 

was swearing at the officers who were already at the location. 

1.17 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the factual allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the Complaint. 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 6 Filed 02/28/06 Page 3 of 9 PageID 38
DEFENDANTS KENNETH FRANCIS AND ROGER ANDREW RUDLOFF’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 4

Bret Poat v. Jason Scroggins, et al., Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-2516-G (ECF) 

 1.18 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the factual allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Complaint. 

 1.19 Defendants deny, as stated, the factual allegations contained in paragraph 18 of 

the Complaint, except that Defendants admit that additional Dallas Police Department squad cars 

arrived at the scene. 

1.20 Defendants admit that Plaintiff was led to another officer’s squad car as alleged in 

paragraph 19 of the Complaint, but Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Plaintiff was led to the squad car by “Officer

Two.” 

1.21 Defendants deny, as stated, the factual allegations contained in paragraph 20 of 

the Complaint, except that Defendants admit that Plaintiff was told that he was going to jail. 

1.22 Defendants deny the factual allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the 

Complaint. 

1.23 Defendants deny the factual allegations contained in paragraph 22 of the 

Complaint. 

 1.24 Defendants deny the factual allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the 

Complaint. 

 1.25 Defendants deny, as stated, the factual allegations contained in paragraph 24 of 

the Complaint, except that Defendants admit that after Plaintiff was arrested and placed in a 

police squad car, an inventory search of Plaintiff’s vehicle was conducted in accordance with 

police procedure. 

 1.26 Defendants deny, as stated, the factual allegations contained in paragraph 25 of 

the Complaint, except that Defendants admit that Plaintiff was placed in the rear of a squad car. 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 6 Filed 02/28/06 Page 4 of 9 PageID 39
DEFENDANTS KENNETH FRANCIS AND ROGER ANDREW RUDLOFF’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 5

Bret Poat v. Jason Scroggins, et al., Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-2516-G (ECF) 

 1.27 Defendants admit the factual allegations contained in paragraph 26 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. 

 1.28 Defendants deny the factual allegations contained in paragraph 27 of the 

Complaint. 

 1.29 Defendants deny the factual allegations contained in paragraph 28 of the 

Complaint. 

 1.30 Defendants deny the factual allegations contained in paragraph 29 of the 

Complaint. 

1.31 Defendants deny the factual allegations contained in paragraph 30 of the 

Complaint. 

1.32 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the factual allegations contained in paragraph 31 of the Complaint. 

1.33 The allegations contained in paragraph 32 of the Complaint merely incorporate by 

reference the allegations stated in the previous paragraphs (paragraphs 1-29) of the Complaint; 

therefore, no answer is necessary or required. To the extent an answer may be required 

Defendants incorporate by reference their answers to those numbered paragraphs as set forth 

above. 

 1.34 Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief or damages sought in 

paragraph 33 of the Complaint. 

 1.35 The allegations contained in paragraph 34 of the Complaint merely incorporate by 

reference the allegations stated in the previous paragraphs (paragraphs 1-31) of the Complaint; 

therefore, no answer is necessary or required. To the extent an answer may be required 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 6 Filed 02/28/06 Page 5 of 9 PageID 40
DEFENDANTS KENNETH FRANCIS AND ROGER ANDREW RUDLOFF’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 6

Bret Poat v. Jason Scroggins, et al., Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-2516-G (ECF) 

Defendants incorporate by reference their answers to those numbered paragraphs as set forth 

above. 

 1.36 Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 35 of the Complaint. 

 1.37 Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 36 of the Complaint. 

 1.38 The allegations contained in paragraph 37 of the Complaint merely incorporate 

by reference the allegations stated in the previous paragraphs (paragraphs 1-34) of the 

Complaint; therefore, no answer is necessary or required. To the extent an answer may be 

required Defendants incorporate by reference their answers to those numbered paragraphs as set 

forth above. 

 1.39 Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 38 of the Complaint. 

 1.40 Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 39 of the Complaint. 

 1.41 Defendants admit that Plaintiff has requested a trial by jury, as asserted in 

paragraph 40 of the Complaint. Defendants also request a jury as to all issues so triable. 

 1.42 Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief or damages sought in 

paragraph 41 of the Complaint. 

 1.43 The last unnumbered paragraph of the Complaint, under the heading “Prayer for 

Relief,” contains no allegations of fact to which an answer is required; however, to the extent 

that an answer is nonetheless required, Defendants deny that Plaintiff has stated a claim upon 

which relief can be granted or that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief or damages specifically

requested in subparts (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of that paragraph. 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 6 Filed 02/28/06 Page 6 of 9 PageID 41
DEFENDANTS KENNETH FRANCIS AND ROGER ANDREW RUDLOFF’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 7

Bret Poat v. Jason Scroggins, et al., Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-2516-G (ECF) 

II. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

2.1 Defendants affirmatively plead that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against 

them upon which relief can be granted. 

2.2 Defendants affirmatively plead that reasonable suspicion existed that Plaintiff had 

committed a criminal offense, justifying his detention. 

2.3 Defendants affirmatively plead that probable cause existed to arrest Plaintiff. 

2.4 Defendants affirmatively plead that the detention, arrest, and continued custody of 

Plaintiff was conducted lawfully, without any intent to injure him, was objectively reasonable, 

and did not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. 

2.5 Defendants affirmatively plead that, on the occasion in question, Plaintiff’s 

injuries, if any, did not result directly and only from the use of force that was clearly excessive to

the need to use force, and that the use of force, if any, was objectively reasonable and did not 

violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. 

2.6 Defendants affirmatively plead that at the time of the incident in question they 

were public or government officials, to wit, police officers, employed by the City of Dallas; that 

they are entitled to qualified and official immunity from suit and from damages in the present 

cause; and that on the occasion in question, they acted without malice; without an intent to 

deprive Plaintiff of any legally protected rights; with a reasonable good faith belief that their 

actions were lawful, proper, and within and pursuant to the scope of their discretionary authority 

as police officers; and that they did not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable 

person would have known. 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 6 Filed 02/28/06 Page 7 of 9 PageID 42
DEFENDANTS KENNETH FRANCIS AND ROGER ANDREW RUDLOFF’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 8

Bret Poat v. Jason Scroggins, et al., Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-2516-G (ECF) 

2.7 Defendants affirmatively plead that they cannot be liable to Plaintiff as a matter of 

law as to Plaintiff’s purported state law claims because the acts that they are alleged to have 

performed or failed to perform are discretionary powers for which they enjoy absolute immunity 

under the Texas Tort Claims Act, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §101.056. 

2.8 Defendants affirmatively plead that Plaintiff own actions and/or negligence were 

the proximate cause of the occurrence or incident in question and of any alleged resulting 

damages. 

2.9 Defendants affirmatively plead that they cannot be liable to Plaintiff regarding 

Plaintiff’s state law claims because they were acting within the course and scope of their public 

duties in the performance of a governmental function, and when an employee acts in such a 

capacity, that employee’s liability can be no greater than that of the municipality. 

III. 

JURY DEMAND

3.1 Defendants demand trial by jury. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants Kenneth Francis and Roger 

Andrew Rudloff pray that Plaintiff take nothing by this suit, that all relief requested by him be 

denied, that Defendants recover all costs of suit and attorney’s fees, and for such other and 

further relief, general or special, at law or in equity, to which Defendants are entitled. 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 6 Filed 02/28/06 Page 8 of 9 PageID 43
DEFENDANTS KENNETH FRANCIS AND ROGER ANDREW RUDLOFF’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 9

Bret Poat v. Jason Scroggins, et al., Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-2516-G (ECF) 

Respectfully submitted, 

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 

CITY OF DALLAS 

 By: s/ Tatia R. Randolph 

TATIA R. RANDOLPH 

Assistant City Attorney 

State Bar No. 00795793 

JASON G. SCHUETTE 

Assistant City Attorney 

State Bar No. 17827020 

 Dallas City Hall 

1500 Marilla Street, 7CN 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

Telephone: (214) 670-3519 

Facsimile: (214) 670-3515 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS JASON 

SCOGGINS, MATTHEW KOBE, KENNETH 

FRANCIS AND ROGER ANDREW RUDLOFF 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on February 28, 2006, the foregoing document was 

electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court, Northern 

District of Texas, using the electronic case filing system of the Court. The electronic case filing 

system sent a “Notice of Electronic Filing” to the following attorney of record who has 

consented in writing to accept this Notice as service of this document by electronic means: Mr. 

Jody G. Sheets, Glast Phillips & Murray, P.C., 2200 One Galleria Tower, 13355 Noel Road, 

Dallas, Texas 75240, counsel for Plaintiff. 

 s/ Tatia R. Randolph 

 Tatia R. Randolph 

 Assistant City Attorney 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 6 Filed 02/28/06 Page 9 of 9 PageID 44