UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PANAMA CITY DIVISION 

EDDIE L. NABORS, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. Case No.: 5:10-cv-00251-RS-EMT 

THE GEO GROUP, INC. et al., 

 Defendants. 

___________________/ 

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF

DEFENDANT THE GEO GROUP, INC.

Pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant 

THE GEO GROUP, INC., (“GEO”), answers the Complaint [doc. 1] and 

interposes affirmative defenses as follows: 

INTRODUCTION

1. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only; otherwise, denied. 

2. Defendant GEO admits that it is a private prison company and that, 

in November 2007, it operated a prison in Jackson County, Florida pursuant to a 

contract with the State of Florida. The remaining allegations of paragraph 2 are 

denied. 

3. Denied. 

4. Without knowledge; therefore, denied. 

4.1. Without knowledge; therefore, denied. 

5(1) – (9). Denied. 

Case 5:10-cv-00251-RS -EMT Document 7 Filed 12/03/10 Page 1 of 8
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. Admitted that jurisdiction is proper; denied that Plaintiff suffered any 

violation of his constitutional rights.

7. Admitted. 

PARTIES

8. Admitted. 

9. Admitted. 

10. Without knowledge; therefore, denied. 

11. Admitted. 

12. Without knowledge; therefore, denied. 

13. Without knowledge; therefore, denied. 

14. Admitted as to Defendant GEO only. 

14.1. Denied. 

OTHER FACTS

15. Denied that Plaintiff entered the facility at 7:30 a.m.; otherwise, 

admitted. 

16. Admitted. 

17. Denied. 

18. Admitted. 

19. Denied. 

20. Without knowledge; therefore, denied. 

21. Denied. 

2

Case 5:10-cv-00251-RS -EMT Document 7 Filed 12/03/10 Page 2 of 8
22. Denied. 

23. Denied. 

24. Admitted that, after Plaintiff tested positive for illegal narcotics on 

two separate ION-SCAN tests, GEO officers conducted a pat-down search of 

Plaintiff in the men’s restroom; otherwise, denied. 

25. Denied. 

26. Admitted that GEO officers conducted a pat-down search of

Plaintiff’s person; otherwise, denied. 

27. Without knowledge; therefore, denied. 

28. Without knowledge; therefore, denied. 

29. Admitted. 

30. Admitted that Plaintiff’s car was searched; denied that the search 

was without Plaintiff’s knowing and voluntary consent. 

31. Denied. 

32. Denied. 

33. Denied. 

34. Without knowledge; therefore, denied. 

35. Without knowledge; therefore, denied. 

36. Admitted that Plaintiff was arrested for possession of narcotics; 

otherwise, denied. 

37. Without knowledge; therefore, denied. 

3

Case 5:10-cv-00251-RS -EMT Document 7 Filed 12/03/10 Page 3 of 8
38. Admitted that Plaintiff was arrested for possession of narcotics; 

denied that Plaintiff’s arrest was at the direction of GEO management. 

39. Without knowledge; therefore, denied. 

40. Without knowledge; therefore, denied. 

41. Denied. 

42. Denied. 

43. Without knowledge; therefore, denied. 

44. Without knowledge; therefore, denied. 

45. Without knowledge; therefore, denied. 

46. Without knowledge; therefore, denied. 

47. Denied. 

48. Denied. 

Count I – The GEO Group, Inc.

49. GEO realleges its responses to paragraphs 1-48 above and 

incorporates them here by reference. 

50. Denied. 

51. Denied. 

52. Denied. 

53. Denied. 

54. Denied. 

55. Denied. 

4

Case 5:10-cv-00251-RS -EMT Document 7 Filed 12/03/10 Page 4 of 8
Count II – Davis and Tyus

56-60. The allegations contained within paragraphs 56-60 are not 

applicable to Defendant GEO; no answer is required. 

Count III – Jackson County Deputy Sheriff Jeff Snell

61-64. The allegations contained within paragraphs 61-64 are not 

applicable to Defendant GEO; no answer is required. 

Count IV – Former Jackson County Sheriff John P. McDaniel

65-70. The allegations contained within paragraphs 65-70 are not 

applicable to Defendant GEO; no answer is required. 

GENERAL DENIAL

Any allegation not specifically admitted herein is denied. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Defendant GEO demands a jury trial on all issues so triable. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

First Affirmative Defense

The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or § 1988. 

Second Affirmative Defense

The alleged search and seizure of Plaintiff’s person and property were 

reasonable, and therefore lawful, under one or more of the well established 

exceptions to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, including the 

“special needs” and/or “consent” doctrines. 

5

Case 5:10-cv-00251-RS -EMT Document 7 Filed 12/03/10 Page 5 of 8
Third Affirmative Defense

At all times pertinent hereto, reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause 

existed as a matter of law for the incidents complained of in the Complaint. 

Fourth Affirmative Defense

Defendant’s actions were in good faith and without malice, and were

further based on such facts and circumstances as to give them reasonable 

suspicion or probable cause to believe Plaintiff was possession of unlawful 

contraband and that their actions were warranted. Defendants reasonably, and in 

good faith, believed that the actions they took with respect to Plaintiff were

constitutional. 

Fifth Affirmative Defense

There are insufficient allegations in the Complaint of, and no evidence to 

support the existence of, any custom, policy or practice, created or maintained by

Defendant which deprived Plaintiff of any civil or constitutional right, or which was

causally related to any unconstitutional conduct of its employees or agents which 

was the legal cause of damage to Plaintiff. No history of widespread abuse or

any custom or policy, formal or informal, existed sufficient to put Defendant on 

notice of any potential or actual civil or constitutional violations. 

Sixth Affirmative Defense

With respect to Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, the Defendant is not

liable as a matter of law based on vicarious liability, joint and several liability, or 

respondeat superior for the acts of any of its employees or agents. 

6

Case 5:10-cv-00251-RS -EMT Document 7 Filed 12/03/10 Page 6 of 8
Seventh Affirmative Defense

Plaintiff’s damages should be reduced by any amounts received or

available to be received from collateral sources or as otherwise allowed by 

applicable law. 

Eighth Affirmative Defense

Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages. 

Ninth Affirmative Defense

Any decision with regards to the arrest and prosecution of Plaintiff was the 

exercise of the independent judgment of the arresting officer(s) and prosecuting 

attorney(s). The intervening acts of the officer(s), attorney(s), and judge(s)

insulate GEO from any liability for damages resulting from Plaintiff’s arrest and

prosecution as those matters were not within GEO’s control. 

Tenth Affirmative Defense

To the extent that Plaintiff may recover damages or other relief, which 

Defendant expressly denies, such damages and other relief may be limited by

the after-acquired evidence doctrine. 

FEES AND COSTS

Defendant hereby requests an award of all fees and costs to which it is

entitled pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, or any other applicable law. 

7

Case 5:10-cv-00251-RS -EMT Document 7 Filed 12/03/10 Page 7 of 8
Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of December 2010. 

COPPINS MONROE 

ADKINS & DINCMAN, P.A. 

 BY: /s/ Scott J. Seagle 

 Gwendolyn P. Adkins, FBN: 0949566

 Scott J. Seagle, FBN: 57158

 P. O. Drawer 14447 

Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4447 

Telephone: (850) 422-2420 

Facsimile: (850) 422-2730 

 E-Mail: gadkins@coppinsmonroe.com 

 sjseagle@coppinsmonroe.com 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(3) and N.D. Florida Local

Rule 5.1, this document is being filed electronically and service shall be through 

the Court's transmission facilities on all persons appearing before this Court. 

/s/ Scott J. Seagle 

8

Case 5:10-cv-00251-RS -EMT Document 7 Filed 12/03/10 Page 8 of 8