UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

 PENSACOLA DIVISION 

MICHAEL CUNNINGHAM, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

 CASE NO.: 3:11CV271-MCR-CJK 

ERIC D. STEVENSON; SELLERS 

SKIEVASKI & STEVENSON, LLP; 

MATTHEW HALE BAXTER; and 

GARY MONTEE; 

Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

DEFENDANTS BAXTER AND MONTEE’S 

 ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

COME NOW Defendants, MATTHEW HALE BAXTER and GARY MONTEE, in their 

individual capacities, by and through undersigned counsel, and file their Answer and Affirmative 

Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint. More specifically, Defendants BAXTER and MONTEE 

would aver as follows: 

 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

 1. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only. 

 2. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only. 

 3. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only. 

 4. Denied. 

PARTIES

 5. Admit. 

Case 3:11-cv-00271-MCR-CJK Document 6 Filed 10/17/11 Page 1 of 4
 6. Without knowledge; therefore, denied. 

 7. Without knowledge; therefore, denied. 

 8. Admit. 

FACTS

 9. Denied. 

 10. Without knowledge; therefore, denied. 

 11. Denied. 

 12. Denied. 

 13. Denied. 

 14. Denied. 

 15. Without knowledge; therefore, denied. 

 16. Denied. 

17. Denied. 

18. Denied. 

19. Denied. 

20. Denied. 

21. Admit. 

22. Admit. 

23. Denied. 

24. Admit that Defendants Baxter and Montee acted within the scope of their 

employment. The remainder of this allegation is denied. 

25. Admit. 

Case 3:11-cv-00271-MCR-CJK Document 6 Filed 10/17/11 Page 2 of 4
COUNT I 

PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

AGAINST STEVENSON AND THE FIRM

26 - 33. Defendants MONTEE and BAXTER are not party defendants to this 

Claim. Accordingly, they do not respond to the allegations as contained therein. 

COUNT II 

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS – 42 U.S.C. §1983

AGAINST BAXTER and MONTEE

34. The Defendants incorporate their responses to paragraphs 1- 25 as if fully set 

forth herein. 

35. Admit. 

36. Denied. 

37. Without knowledge; therefore, denied. 

38. Denied. 

39. Denied. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a First Affirmative Defense, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendants BAXTER and 

MONTEE were acting within the scope of their employment as Deputy Sheriffs, employed by 

the Sheriff of Escambia County, Florida, and were not violating a clearly established law of 

which a reasonable deputy would be aware. Thus, Defendants BAXTER and MONTEE are 

entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities. 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a Second and separate Affirmative Defense, Defendants BAXTER and MONTEE, at 

Case 3:11-cv-00271-MCR-CJK Document 6 Filed 10/17/11 Page 3 of 4
all times relevant hereto, acted reasonably within the scope of their employment and with the 

good faith belief that their actions were lawful and proper. 

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a Third and separate Affirmative Defense, probable cause existed as a matter of law 

and fact for the arrest in the complaint. 

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a Fourth and separate Affirmative Defense, actions attributable to Defendants 

BAXTER and MONTEE, if any, at worst constitute mere negligence which fails to state a claim 

for violation of an individual’s civil or constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Complaint, Defendants BAXTER and 

MONTEE invoke their right to trial by jury. 

Respectfully submitted this 17th day of October 2011. 

/s/ Lisa Truckenbrod 

LISA TRUCKENBROD 

Florida Bar No. 132055 

JOLLY & PETERSON, P.A. 

Post Office Box 37400 

Tallahassee, FL 32315 

Telephone: 850-422-0282 

Facsimile: 850-422-1913 

Attorneys for Defendants Baxter and Montee 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by 

U.S. Mail to Michael Cunningham, 1809 Condor Drive, Cantonment, Florida 32533, this 17th

day of October 2011. 

/s/ Lisa Truckenbrod 

LISA TRUCKENBROD 

Case 3:11-cv-00271-MCR-CJK Document 6 Filed 10/17/11 Page 4 of 4