DEFENDANTS JASON SCOGGINS AND MATTHEW KOBE’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 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. § 

 § CIVIL ACTION NO. 

JASON SCROGGINS, MATTHEW § 

KOBE, KENNETH FRANCIS, ROGER § 3:05-CV-2516-G 

ANDREW RUDLOFF and § ECF

ADDITIONAL DALLAS POLICE § 

DEPARTMENT OFFICERS TO BE § 

NAMED ONCE THEIR IDENTITIES § 

ARE DETERMINED, § 

 § 

 Defendants. § 

DEFENDANTS JASON SCOGGINS AND MATTHEW KOBE’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 

Defendants Jason Scoggins (“Scoggins”), incorrectly named in Plaintiff’s pleadings as 

“Jason Scroggins,” and Matthew Kobe (“Kobe”) (collectively, “Defendants”), pursuant to Rule 

15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Order of July 6, 2006, granting 

Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, file the following answer 

in response to Plaintiff’s First Amended 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. 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 26 Filed 07/20/06 Page 1 of 20 PageID 141
DEFENDANTS JASON SCOGGINS AND MATTHEW KOBE’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 2

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

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 

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 admit that Plaintiff has asserted the allegations contained in paragraph 

4 of the Complaint. Defendants, however, deny that Plaintiff was subjected to an unreasonable 

seizure, that his rights were violated under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United 

States Constitution, and that he was assaulted or battered by them. Defendants further deny that 

Plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted or that Plaintiff is entitled to any 

relief. 

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 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 26 Filed 07/20/06 Page 2 of 20 PageID 142
DEFENDANTS JASON SCOGGINS AND MATTHEW KOBE’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 3

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

“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 (“Francis”) and Roger Andrew Rudloff (“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. 

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 deny, as stated, the factual allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the 

Complaint, except that Defendants admit that in the course of their encounter with Plaintiff, 

Scoggins approached Plaintiff and requested that he produce his driver’s license and insurance 

card. 

1.10 Defendants deny, as stated, the factual allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the 

Complaint. 

1.11 Defendants deny the factual allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the 

Complaint. 

1.12 Defendants deny, as stated, the factual allegations contained in paragraph 11 of 

the Complaint, except that Defendants admit that Plaintiff was subsequently arrested and placed 

in handcuffs. 

 1.13 Defendants deny the factual allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the 

Complaint. 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 26 Filed 07/20/06 Page 3 of 20 PageID 143
DEFENDANTS JASON SCOGGINS AND MATTHEW KOBE’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 4

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

 1.14 Defendants deny the factual allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the 

Complaint. 

 1.15 Defendants deny the factual allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the 

Complaint. 

1.16 Defendants admit the factual allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the 

Complaint. 

1.17 Defendants admit the factual allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the 

Complaint. 

 1.18 Defendants deny the factual allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the 

Complaint. 

 1.19 Defendants deny the factual allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the 

Complaint. 

1.20 Defendants deny, as stated, the factual allegations contained in paragraph 19 of 

the Complaint, except that Defendants admit that after Plaintiff was placed in handcuffs 

additional Dallas Police Department squad cars arrived at the scene. 

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

the Complaint, except that Defendants admit that Plaintiff was escorted to a Dallas Police 

Department squad car. 

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

the truth of the factual allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the Complaint. 

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

Complaint. 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 26 Filed 07/20/06 Page 4 of 20 PageID 144
DEFENDANTS JASON SCOGGINS AND MATTHEW KOBE’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 5

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

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

Complaint. 

 1.25 Defendants deny the factual allegations contained in paragraph 24 of the 

Complaint. 

 1.26 Defendants deny, as stated, the vague and ambiguous allegations contained in 

paragraph 25 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. 

 1.27 Defendants deny the vague, ambiguous and highly inflammatory allegations 

contained in paragraph 26 of the Complaint. 

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

the truth of the factual allegations contained in paragraph 27 of the Complaint. 

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

the truth of the factual allegations contained in paragraph 28 of the Complaint. 

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

the truth of the factual allegations contained in paragraph 29 of the Complaint. 

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

the truth of 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 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the factual allegations contained in paragraph 32 of the Complaint. 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 26 Filed 07/20/06 Page 5 of 20 PageID 145
DEFENDANTS JASON SCOGGINS AND MATTHEW KOBE’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 6

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

1.34 The allegations contained in paragraph 33 of the Complaint merely incorporate by 

reference the allegations stated in the previous paragraphs (paragraphs 1-32) 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. 

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

paragraph 34 of the Complaint. 

 1.36 The allegations contained in paragraph 35 of the Complaint merely incorporate by 

reference the allegations stated in the previous paragraphs (paragraphs 1-32) 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. 

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

 1.38 Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 37 of the Complaint. 

 1.39 The allegations contained in paragraph 38 of the Complaint merely incorporate 

by reference the allegations stated in the previous paragraphs (paragraphs 1-32) 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. 

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

 1.41 Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 40 of the Complaint. 

 1.42 Paragraph 41 of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Francis and Rudloff’s 

Affirmative Defenses”) does not apply to Defendants; however, to the extent that an answer is 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 26 Filed 07/20/06 Page 6 of 20 PageID 146
DEFENDANTS JASON SCOGGINS AND MATTHEW KOBE’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 7

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

required, Defendants deny that Plaintiff has stated a claim for which relief may be granted or that 

Plaintiff is entitled to any relief. 

 1.43 Paragraph 42 of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Francis and Rudloff’s 

Affirmative Defenses”) does not apply to Defendants; however, to the extent that a response is 

required, Defendants assert that this paragraph is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the affirmative 

defense allegations contained in Defendants Francis and Rudloff’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Original 

Complaint for Damages and, therefore, an answer is neither necessary nor required. 

 1.44 Paragraph 43 of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Francis and Rudloff’s 

Affirmative Defenses”) does not apply to Defendants; however, to the extent that a response is 

required, Defendants assert that this paragraph is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the affirmative 

defense allegations contained in Defendants Francis and Rudloff’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Original 

Complaint for Damages and, therefore, an answer is neither necessary nor required. 

 1.45 Paragraph 44 of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Francis and Rudloff’s 

Affirmative Defenses”) does not apply to Defendants; however, to the extent that a response is 

required, Defendants assert that this paragraph is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the affirmative 

defense allegations contained in Defendants Francis and Rudloff’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Original 

Complaint for Damages and, therefore, an answer is neither necessary nor required. 

 1.46 Paragraph 45 of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Francis and Rudloff’s 

Affirmative Defenses”) does not apply to Defendants; however, to the extent that a response is 

required, Defendants assert that this paragraph is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the affirmative 

defense allegations contained in Defendants Francis and Rudloff’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Original 

Complaint for Damages and, therefore, an answer is neither necessary nor required. 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 26 Filed 07/20/06 Page 7 of 20 PageID 147
DEFENDANTS JASON SCOGGINS AND MATTHEW KOBE’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 8

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

 1.47 Paragraph 46 of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Francis and Rudloff’s 

Affirmative Defenses”) does not apply to Defendants; however, to the extent that a response is 

required, Defendants assert that this paragraph is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the affirmative 

defense allegations contained in Defendants Francis and Rudloff’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Original 

Complaint for Damages and, therefore, an answer is neither necessary nor required. 

 1.48 Paragraph 47 of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Francis and Rudloff’s 

Affirmative Defenses”) does not apply to Defendants; however, to the extent that a response is 

required, Defendants assert that this paragraph is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the affirmative 

defense allegations contained in Defendants Francis and Rudloff’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Original 

Complaint for Damages and, therefore, an answer is neither necessary nor required. 

 1.49 Paragraph 48 of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Francis and Rudloff’s 

Affirmative Defenses”) does not apply to Defendants; however, to the extent that a response is 

required, Defendants assert that this paragraph is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the affirmative 

defense allegations contained in Defendants Francis and Rudloff’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Original 

Complaint for Damages and, therefore, an answer is neither necessary nor required. 

 1.50 Paragraph 49 of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Francis and Rudloff’s 

Affirmative Defenses”) does not apply to Defendants; however, to the extent that a response is 

required, Defendants assert that this paragraph is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the affirmative 

defense allegations contained in Defendants Francis and Rudloff’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Original 

Complaint for Damages and, therefore, an answer is neither necessary nor required. 

 1.51 Paragraph 50 of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Francis and Rudloff’s 

Affirmative Defenses”) does not apply to Defendants; however, to the extent that a response is 

required, Defendants assert that this paragraph is merely a general denial of the factual 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 26 Filed 07/20/06 Page 8 of 20 PageID 148
DEFENDANTS JASON SCOGGINS AND MATTHEW KOBE’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 9

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

allegations asserted in Defendants Francis and Rudloff’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Original 

Complaint for Damages to which an answer is neither necessary nor required. 

 1.52 Paragraph 51 of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Scroggins and Kobe’s 

Affirmative Defenses”) contains propositions of law to which no answer is required; however, to 

the extent that an answer is required, Defendants deny that Plaintiff has stated a claim for which 

relief may be granted or that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief. 

 1.53 Paragraph 52 of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Scroggins and Kobe’s 

Affirmative Defenses”) is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the affirmative defense allegations 

contained in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Damages and, therefore, 

an answer is neither necessary nor required. 

 1.54 Paragraph 53 of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Scroggins and Kobe’s 

Affirmative Defenses”) is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the affirmative defense allegations 

contained in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Damages and, therefore, 

an answer is neither necessary nor required. 

 1.55 Paragraph 54 of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Scroggins and Kobe’s 

Affirmative Defenses”) is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the affirmative defense allegations 

contained in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Damages and, therefore, 

an answer is neither necessary nor required. 

 1.56 Paragraph 55 of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Scroggins and Kobe’s 

Affirmative Defenses”) is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the affirmative defense allegations 

contained in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Damages and, therefore, 

an answer is neither necessary nor required. 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 26 Filed 07/20/06 Page 9 of 20 PageID 149
DEFENDANTS JASON SCOGGINS AND MATTHEW KOBE’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 10

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

 1.57 Paragraph 56 of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Scroggins and Kobe’s 

Affirmative Defenses”) is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the affirmative defense allegations 

contained in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Damages and, therefore, 

an answer is neither necessary nor required. 

 1.58 Paragraph 55.1 [sic] of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Scroggins and 

Kobe’s Affirmative Defenses”) is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the factual allegations made in 

support of Defendants’ assertion of the affirmative defenses of qualified and official immunity, 

as set forth in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Damages, and, therefore, 

no answer is required. 

 1.59 Paragraph 55.2 [sic] of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Scroggins and 

Kobe’s Affirmative Defenses”) is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the factual allegations made in 

support of Defendants’ assertion of the affirmative defenses of qualified and official immunity, 

as set forth in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Damages, and, therefore, 

no answer is required. 

 1.60 Paragraph 55.3 [sic] of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Scroggins and 

Kobe’s Affirmative Defenses”) is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the factual allegations made in 

support of Defendants’ assertion of the affirmative defenses of qualified and official immunity, 

as set forth in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Damages, and, therefore, 

no answer is required. 

 1.61 Paragraph 55.4 [sic] of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Scroggins and 

Kobe’s Affirmative Defenses”) is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the factual allegations made in 

support of Defendants’ assertion of the affirmative defenses of qualified and official immunity, 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 26 Filed 07/20/06 Page 10 of 20 PageID 150
DEFENDANTS JASON SCOGGINS AND MATTHEW KOBE’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 11

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

as set forth in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Damages, and, therefore, 

no answer is required. 

 1.62 Paragraph 55.5 [sic] of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Scroggins and 

Kobe’s Affirmative Defenses”) is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the factual allegations made in 

support of Defendants’ assertion of the affirmative defenses of qualified and official immunity, 

as set forth in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Damages, and, therefore, 

no answer is required. 

 1.63 Paragraph 55.6 [sic] of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Scroggins and 

Kobe’s Affirmative Defenses”) is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the factual allegations made in 

support of Defendants’ assertion of the affirmative defenses of qualified and official immunity, 

as set forth in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Damages, and, therefore, 

no answer is required. 

 1.64 Paragraph 55.7 [sic] of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Scroggins and 

Kobe’s Affirmative Defenses”) is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the factual allegations made in 

support of Defendants’ assertion of the affirmative defenses of qualified and official immunity, 

as set forth in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Damages, and, therefore, 

no answer is required. 

 1.65 Paragraph 55.8 [sic] of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Scroggins and 

Kobe’s Affirmative Defenses”) is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the factual allegations made in 

support of Defendants’ assertion of the affirmative defenses of qualified and official immunity, 

as set forth in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Damages, and, therefore, 

no answer is required. 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 26 Filed 07/20/06 Page 11 of 20 PageID 151
DEFENDANTS JASON SCOGGINS AND MATTHEW KOBE’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 12

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

 1.66 Paragraph 55.9 [sic] of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Scroggins and 

Kobe’s Affirmative Defenses”) is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the factual allegations made in 

support of Defendants’ assertion of the affirmative defenses of qualified and official immunity, 

as set forth in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Damages, and, therefore, 

no answer is required. 

 1.67 Paragraph 55.10 [sic] of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Scroggins 

and Kobe’s Affirmative Defenses”) is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the factual allegations made in 

support of Defendants’ assertion of the affirmative defenses of qualified and official immunity, 

as set forth in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Damages, and, therefore, 

no answer is required. 

 1.68 Paragraph 55.11 [sic] of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Scroggins 

and Kobe’s Affirmative Defenses”) is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the factual allegations made in 

support of Defendants’ assertion of the affirmative defenses of qualified and official immunity, 

as set forth in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Damages, and, therefore, 

no answer is required. 

 1.69 Paragraph 55.12 [sic] of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Scroggins 

and Kobe’s Affirmative Defenses”) is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the factual allegations made in 

support of Defendants’ assertion of the affirmative defenses of qualified and official immunity, 

as set forth in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Damages, and, therefore, 

no answer is required. 

 1.70 Paragraph 55.13 [sic] of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Scroggins 

and Kobe’s Affirmative Defenses”) is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the factual allegations made in 

support of Defendants’ assertion of the affirmative defenses of qualified and official immunity, 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 26 Filed 07/20/06 Page 12 of 20 PageID 152
DEFENDANTS JASON SCOGGINS AND MATTHEW KOBE’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 13

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

as set forth in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Damages, and, therefore, 

no answer is required. 

 1.71 Paragraph 55.14 [sic] of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Scroggins 

and Kobe’s Affirmative Defenses”) is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the factual allegations made in 

support of Defendants’ assertion of the affirmative defenses of qualified and official immunity, 

as set forth in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Damages, and, therefore, 

no answer is required. 

 1.72 Paragraph 55.15 [sic] of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Scroggins 

and Kobe’s Affirmative Defenses”) is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the factual allegations made in 

support of Defendants’ assertion of the affirmative defenses of qualified and official immunity, 

as set forth in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Damages, and, therefore, 

no answer is required. 

 1.73 Paragraph 57 of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Scroggins and Kobe’s 

Affirmative Defenses”) is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the affirmative defense allegations 

contained in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Damages and, therefore, 

an answer is neither necessary nor required. 

 1.74 Paragraph 58 of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Scroggins and Kobe’s 

Affirmative Defenses”) is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the affirmative defense allegations 

contained in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Damages and, therefore, 

an answer is neither necessary nor required. 

 1.75 Paragraph 59 of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Scroggins and Kobe’s 

Affirmative Defenses”) is merely Plaintiff’s reply to the affirmative defense allegations 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 26 Filed 07/20/06 Page 13 of 20 PageID 153
DEFENDANTS JASON SCOGGINS AND MATTHEW KOBE’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 14

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

contained in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Damages and, therefore, 

an answer is neither necessary nor required. 

 1.76 Paragraph 60 of Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Reply to Scroggins and Kobe’s 

Affirmative Defenses”) is merely a general denial of the factual allegations contained in 

Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint for Damages and, therefore, an answer is 

neither necessary nor required. 

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

paragraph 60 [sic] of the Complaint under the heading “Request for Trial by Jury.” 

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

paragraph 61 [sic] of the Complaint. Defendants deny the allegations contained in the second 

sentence of that paragraph. 

 1.79 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. 

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. 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 26 Filed 07/20/06 Page 14 of 20 PageID 154
DEFENDANTS JASON SCOGGINS AND MATTHEW KOBE’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 15

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

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 

(“City”); that they are entitled to qualified and official immunity from suit and from damages as 

to all claims alleged in the present cause; 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. In support of their assertion of the 

defenses of qualified and official immunity, Defendants plead as follows: 

2.6.1 On December 29, 2003, Defendants were public officials, 

specifically, peace officers certified by the Texas Commission 

on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education 

(“TCLEOSE”), employed by the City of Dallas police 

department. At the time of the incident which serves as the 

basis for this action, Defendants were assigned to the 

Northwest Patrol Operations Division of the Dallas police 

department. 

2.6.2 On December 29, 2003, at approximately 12:45 a.m., the time 

of Plaintiff’s arrest, Defendants were working as patrol officers 

in Dallas, Texas. At all relevant times related to their 

encounter with Plaintiff, Defendants were discharging their 

official duties and exercising their discretionary authority as 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 26 Filed 07/20/06 Page 15 of 20 PageID 155
DEFENDANTS JASON SCOGGINS AND MATTHEW KOBE’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 16

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

police officers. On that day, Defendants worked together as 

“partners” and rode in the same patrol car. 

2.6.3 Prior to making contact with Plaintiff on December 29, 2003, 

Defendants received a call from police dispatch regarding a hit 

and run accident that had occurred at or near the 10600 block 

of Wireway Drive in Dallas, Texas. While en route to the 

accident site, Defendants noticed a black Mercedes that met the 

description of one of the vehicles involved in the accident 

parked in the parking lot of the Platinum Club, a business 

establishment located near the vicinity of the accident site. 

Defendants observed three people standing next to the 

Mercedes. 

2.6.4 Defendants, who were in a marked Dallas Police Department 

patrol car, drove onto the parking lot and got out of their patrol 

car. The officers were wearing their uniforms and badges and 

were readily identifiable as Dallas police officers. Defendants 

approached the group of individuals to inquire about the 

vehicle. One of the individuals told Defendants that the 

vehicle belonged to a white male who had just walked to the 

Platinum Club. Defendants proceeded to inspect the exterior of 

the Mercedes to determine whether it was the vehicle that had 

been involved in the accident. While inspecting the vehicle, 

Defendants heard someone yell, “Get the f*** out of [or away 

from] my car!” Scoggins turned and observed an extremely 

muscular male, later identified as Plaintiff, walking toward the 

Mercedes from the direction of the night club. 

2.6.5 Defendants informed Plaintiff that they were investigating a hit 

and run accident and that they had reason to believe that 

Plaintiff’s automobile may have been involved in the accident. 

Scoggins directed Plaintiff to produce his driver’s license. 

Plaintiff took his driver’s license out of his wallet and threw it 

at Scoggins causing the license to strike Scoggins in the chest. 

Scoggins picked up the license from the ground and directed 

Plaintiff to produce his insurance card. Plaintiff in turn 

responded, “F*** you. I don’t have to give you s***.” 

Scoggins told Plaintiff to calm down and directed him to 

produce his insurance card a second time. Plaintiff again used 

profane language and refused to comply with the officer’s 

directive. Based on Plaintiff’s conduct, demeanor and 

appearance, Defendants suspected that Plaintiff was

intoxicated. 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 26 Filed 07/20/06 Page 16 of 20 PageID 156
DEFENDANTS JASON SCOGGINS AND MATTHEW KOBE’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 17

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

2.6.6 Scoggins told Plaintiff that if he failed to produce his insurance 

card he would be taken to jail for public intoxication. Plaintiff 

in turn responded, “F*** you. I’m not going to jail.” Kobe 

then called for cover over the police radio and Scoggins 

retrieved his mace can from his police utility belt. Scoggins 

told Plaintiff that he was under arrest and instructed him to turn 

around and place his hands behind his back. 

2.6.7 Plaintiff stated again that he was not going to jail and began to 

walk toward Defendants in an aggressive manner. As Scoggins 

walked toward Plaintiff to effect the arrest he saw Plaintiff 

clench his right hand into a fist. Scoggins dispensed a 1 second 

burst of O.C. pepper spray to Plaintiff’s face. Plaintiff swung 

his right hand at Scoggins, narrowly missing Scoggins’ face. 

Kobe then grabbed Plaintiff’s right arm and jumped on 

Plaintiff’s back. Kobe attempted to apply a lateral vascular 

neck restraint, a force technique then authorized and approved 

by the Dallas Police Department, but he was unable to 

administer the technique. Kobe then used a straight arm bar 

takedown maneuver to force Plaintiff to the ground. 

Defendants struggled with Plaintiff for approximately twenty 

(20) feet through the parking lot until they were finally able to 

force him to the ground. When Plaintiff and Defendants fell to 

the ground, Plaintiff’s head hit the concrete which resulted in a 

laceration above his right eye. 

2.6.8 As soon as Plaintiff hit the ground, he rolled onto his stomach 

and put his arms under his chest. Defendants continued to yell 

at Plaintiff to “stop resisting” and to place his hands behind his 

back, but Plaintiff ignored the officers’ commands. Defendants 

then applied several knee strikes to Plaintiff’s common 

peroneal nerve in an attempt to gain compliance. After several 

minutes of knee strikes, Plaintiff stopped resisting and 

Defendants were finally able to place handcuffs on him. 

2.6.9 Defendants then raised Plaintiff and sat him in an upright 

position so that he could breathe properly. Meanwhile, the 

requested police cover arrived at the scene but the struggle was 

over. Plaintiff continued to spout forth verbally abusive and 

profane language toward Defendants and the other officers who 

responded to the officer assist call. 

2.6.10 Paramedics from Dallas Fire Rescue responded to the scene 

and treated Plaintiff for the laceration above his eye. 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 26 Filed 07/20/06 Page 17 of 20 PageID 157
DEFENDANTS JASON SCOGGINS AND MATTHEW KOBE’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 18

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

2.6.11 Two Dallas police officers, namely, Kenneth Francis and 

Roger Rudloff, transported Plaintiff to Parkland Memorial 

Hospital for further medical treatment and then to Lew Sterrett 

County Jail, where Plaintiff was booked-in and charged with 

public intoxication and resisting arrest. 

2.6.12 Based on the facts and observations stated in paragraphs 2.6.7 

and 2.6.8 as well as their training and experience, Defendants 

believed that it was necessary to use force in order to respond 

to Plaintiff’s unlawful use of force and to effect Plaintiff’s 

arrest. 

2.6.13 At all relevant times, Defendants believed that their actions 

were lawful and justified by the facts known to them and the 

applicable law relating to detention, arrest, and the use of force. 

Defendants used only the amount of force that they believed to 

be reasonably necessary to respond to Plaintiff’s unlawful use 

of force in resisting arrest. 

2.6.14 A reasonable police officer, possessing the information known 

to Defendants at the time, could have believed that it was 

lawful to use force in the same manner as Defendants in order 

to effect Plaintiff’s arrest. Therefore, Defendants’ use of force 

as described above was objectively reasonable. 

2.6.15 Defendants’ actions, as described in paragraphs 2.6.7 and 2.6.8, 

inclusive, were objectively reasonable, in that a reasonable 

police officer could have determined that Defendants’ actions, 

under the facts and circumstances as then known by 

Defendants, were reasonable, prudent, and did not violate 

clearly established law. 

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’s own actions and/or negligence 

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

damages. 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 26 Filed 07/20/06 Page 18 of 20 PageID 158
DEFENDANTS JASON SCOGGINS AND MATTHEW KOBE’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 19

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

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 Jason Scoggins and Matthew 

Kobe 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. 

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 AND MATTHEW KOBE 

Case 3:05-cv-02516-BD Document 26 Filed 07/20/06 Page 19 of 20 PageID 159
DEFENDANTS JASON SCOGGINS AND MATTHEW KOBE’S ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – Page 20

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on July 20, 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. 

Brandon S. Davenport, 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 26 Filed 07/20/06 Page 20 of 20 PageID 160