1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Daniel J. O’Connor, Jr., Bar No. 010081

Justin D. Holm, Bar No. 025202

O’CONNOR & CAMPBELL, P.C.

7955 South Priest Drive

Tempe, AZ 85284

daniel.oconnor@occlaw.com

justin.holm@occlaw.com

602-241-7000

Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mussalina Muhaymin as Personal 

Representative of the Estate of 

Muhammad Abdul Muhaymin Jr.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

City of Phoenix, an Arizona Municipal

Corporation; Antonio Tarango; Officer 

Oswald Grenier; Officer Kevin 

McGowan; Officer Jason Hobe; 

Officer Ronaldo Canilao; Officer 

David Head; Officer Susan 

Heimbinger; Officer James Clark; 

Officer Dennis Lerous; Officer Ryan 

Nielson; Officer Steven Wong; and 

Doe Supervisors 1-5,

Defendants.

Case No.: CV-17-04565-PHX-SMB

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Defendants City of Phoenix, Antonio Tarango, Oswald Grenier, Kevin 

McGowan, Jason Hobel, Ronaldo Canilao, David Head, Susan Heimbigner, 

James Clark, Dennis Leroux, Ryan Nielsen, and Steven Wong (collectively the 

“Phoenix Defendants”), through undersigned counsel, for their Answer to plaintiff’s 

First Amended Complaint, admit, deny, and affirmatively allege as follows:
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Phoenix Defendants admit the allegations in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 

of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

PARTIES

2. Phoenix Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form 

a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 4 of plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint and therefore deny all the allegations in this paragraph.

3. Phoenix Defendants deny paragraph 5 of plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint.

4. Phoenix Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form 

a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 of 

plaintiff’s Complaint and therefore deny all the allegations in these paragraphs.

5. Regarding paragraph 9 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, 

Phoenix Defendants admit the named individuals are officers with the City of 

Phoenix Police Department. The Phoenix Defendants affirmatively assert the 

remaining allegations of this paragraph call for legal conclusions. To the extent the

Court believes these allegations require a response, Phoenix Defendants deny the 

same and demand strict proof thereof.

6. Phoenix Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form 

a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 10 of plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint and therefore deny all the allegations in this paragraph.

7. Regarding paragraph 11 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, 

Phoenix Defendants admit Tarango is a city employee with the City of Phoenix 

Parks Department. The Phoenix Defendants affirmatively assert the remaining 

allegations of this paragraph call for legal conclusions. To the extent the Court 
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

believes these allegations require a response, Phoenix Defendants deny the same

and demand strict proof thereof.

8. Regarding paragraph 12 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, 

Phoenix Defendants admit the City of Phoenix is an Arizona municipality. The 

Phoenix Defendants affirmatively assert the remaining allegations of this 

paragraph call for legal conclusions. To the extent the Court believes these 

allegations require a response, Phoenix Defendants deny the same and demand 

strict proof thereof.

NOTICE OF CLAIM

9. Regarding paragraphs 13, 14, and 15 of plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint, Phoenix Defendants acknowledge the Court has considered plaintiff’s 

Notice of Claim and determined its validity. To the extent the Court believes these 

allegations require a response, Phoenix Defendants admit them.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

The Decedent & His Service Dog

10. Phoenix Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form 

a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 1 of plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint and therefore deny all the allegations in this paragraph.1

11. Phoenix Defendants deny paragraph 2 of plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint.

The Community Center Incident

12. Regarding paragraphs 3 and 4 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, 

Phoenix Defendants admit Muhaymin and Chaquita were at the Maryvale 

 

1 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint inexplicably begins numbering its paragraphs anew with its 

Facts Common to All Counts section. To avoid confusion regarding their answers, the Phoenix 

Defendants will mirror plaintiff’s numbering system and section labels.
- 4 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Community Center on January 4, 2017. The Phoenix Defendants deny the 

remaining allegations of these paragraphs and demand strict proof thereof.

13. Phoenix Defendants deny paragraphs 5 and 6 of plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint.

The False Report to Police

14. Regarding paragraph 7 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, 

Phoenix Defendants admit the Phoenix Police Department was called. The 

Phoenix Defendants deny the remaining allegations of this paragraph and demand 

strict proof thereof.

15. Phoenix Defendants deny paragraph 8 of plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint.

16. Regarding paragraph 9 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, 

Phoenix Defendants admit police officers responded to the call. The Phoenix 

Defendants deny the remaining allegations of this paragraph and demand strict 

proof thereof.

17. Regarding paragraph 10 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, 

Phoenix Defendants admit a responding officer spoke with Tarango. The Phoenix 

Defendants deny the remaining allegations of this paragraph and demand strict 

proof thereof.

18. Regarding paragraph 11 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, 

Phoenix Defendants admit responding officers spoke with Muhaymin. The Phoenix 

Defendants deny the remaining allegations of this paragraph and demand strict 

proof thereof.

19. Phoenix Defendants deny paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 of 

plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.
- 5 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

20. Regarding paragraph 17 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, 

Phoenix Defendants admit Muhaymin was allowed to use the Community Center 

restroom. The Phoenix Defendants deny the remaining allegations of this 

paragraph and demand strict proof thereof.

21. Phoenix Defendants deny paragraph 18 of plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint.

22. Regarding paragraphs 19 and 20 of plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint, Phoenix Defendants affirmatively assert the Court has dismissed 

plaintiff’s civil-conspiracy claims. To the extent the Court believes these allegations 

require a response, Phoenix Defendants deny them.

The Arrest & Death of the Decedent

23. Phoenix Defendants admit paragraphs 21, 22, and 23 of plaintiff’s 

First Amended Complaint.

24. Phoenix Defendants deny paragraphs 24 and 25 of plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint.

25. Phoenix Defendants admit paragraph 26 of plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint.

26. Phoenix Defendants deny paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 of 

plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

27. Regarding paragraph 33 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, 

Phoenix Defendants admit Muhaymin was taken to the ground twice during his 

arrest. The Phoenix Defendants deny the remaining allegations of this paragraph 

and demand strict proof thereof.

28. Phoenix Defendants admit paragraph 34 of plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint.
- 6 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

29. Regarding paragraph 35 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, 

Phoenix Defendants admit Muhaymin was taken to the ground twice during his 

arrest. The Phoenix Defendants deny the remaining allegations of this paragraph 

and demand strict proof thereof.

30. Phoenix Defendants deny paragraphs 36 and 37 of plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint.

31. Regarding paragraph 38 and 39 of plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint, Phoenix Defendants admit Muhaymin became unresponsive and was 

administered CPR during his arrest. The Phoenix Defendants deny the remaining 

allegations of this paragraph and demand strict proof thereof.

FEDERAL CLAIMS

COUNT I – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

EXCESSIVE FORCE

32. Paragraph 40 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint requires no 

response. To the extent the Court believes this paragraph requires a response,

Phoenix Defendants deny the same and demand strict proof thereof.

33. Phoenix Defendants affirmatively assert paragraphs 41 and 42 of 

plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint call for legal conclusions. To the extent the

Court believes these paragraphs require a response, Phoenix Defendants deny

the same and demand strict proof thereof.

34. Phoenix Defendants deny paragraphs 43, 44, 45, and 46 of plaintiff’s 

First Amended Complaint.

COUNT II – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

FAILURE TO PROTECT/INTERVENE

35. Paragraph 47 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint requires no 

response. To the extent the Court believes this paragraph requires a response,

Phoenix Defendants deny the same and demand strict proof thereof.
- 7 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

36. Phoenix Defendants affirmatively assert paragraphs 48 and 49 of 

plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint call for legal conclusions. To the extent the

Court believes these paragraphs require a response, Phoenix Defendants deny

the same and demand strict proof thereof.

37. Phoenix Defendants deny paragraphs 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, and 55 of 

plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

COUNT III – Title II ADA

DISCRIMINATION

38. Paragraph 56 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint requires no 

response. To the extent the Court believes this paragraph requires a response,

Phoenix Defendants deny the same and demand strict proof thereof.

39. Phoenix Defendants affirmatively assert paragraphs 57 and 58 of 

plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint call for legal conclusions. To the extent the

Court believes these paragraphs require a response, Phoenix Defendants deny

the same and demand strict proof thereof.

40. Phoenix Defendants deny paragraphs 59 and 60 of plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint.

41. Phoenix Defendants affirmatively assert paragraphs 61, 62, and 63 of 

plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint call for legal conclusions. To the extent the

Court believes these paragraphs require a response, Phoenix Defendants deny

the same and demand strict proof thereof.

42. Phoenix Defendants deny paragraphs 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, and 69 of 

plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

COUNT IV – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

SUPERVISOR LIABILITY

43. Regarding paragraphs 70 to 75 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, 

Phoenix Defendants affirmatively assert the Court has dismissed this Count. To 
- 8 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

the extent the Court believes these allegations require a response, Phoenix 

Defendants deny them.

COUNT V – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

MUNICIPAL LIABILITY

[FAILURE TO TRAIN]

44. Regarding paragraphs 76 to 82 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, 

Phoenix Defendants affirmatively assert the Court has dismissed this Count. To 

the extent the Court believes these allegations require a response, Phoenix 

Defendants deny them.

COUNT VI – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

MUNICIPAL LIABILITY

[UNLAWFUL POLICIES, PRACTICES, AND/OR CUSTOMS]

45. Regarding paragraphs 83 to 88 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, 

Phoenix Defendants affirmatively assert the Court has dismissed this Count. To 

the extent the Court believes these allegations require a response, Phoenix 

Defendants deny them.

STATE LAW CLAIMS

COUNT VII – A.R.S. §§ 12-611 et seq., 14-3110

[WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL ACTION]

EXCESSIVE FORCE (A.R.S. § 13-410)

46. Paragraph 89 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint requires no 

response. To the extent the Court believes this paragraph requires a response,

Phoenix Defendants deny the same and demand strict proof thereof.

47. Phoenix Defendants deny paragraph 90 of plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint.

48. Phoenix Defendants affirmatively assert paragraphs 91 and 92 of 

plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint call for legal conclusions. To the extent the
- 9 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Court believes these paragraphs require a response, Phoenix Defendants deny

the same and demand strict proof thereof.

49. Phoenix Defendants deny paragraphs 93, 94, and 95 of plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint.

COUNT VIII – A.R.S. §§ 12-611 et seq., 14-3110

[WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL ACTION]

BATTERY

50. Paragraph 96 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint requires no 

response. To the extent the Court believes this paragraph requires a response,

Phoenix Defendants deny the same and demand strict proof thereof.

51. Phoenix Defendants affirmatively assert paragraphs 97, 98, and 99 of 

plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint call for legal conclusions. To the extent the

Court believes these paragraphs require a response, Phoenix Defendants deny

the same and demand strict proof thereof.

52. Phoenix Defendants deny paragraphs 100, 101, 102, and 103 of 

plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

COUNT IX – A.R.S. §§ 12-611 et seq., 14-3110

[WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL ACTION]

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

53. Paragraph 104 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint requires no 

response. To the extent the Court believes this paragraph requires a response,

Phoenix Defendants deny the same and demand strict proof thereof.

54. Phoenix Defendants affirmatively assert paragraphs 105 and 106 of 

plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint call for legal conclusions. To the extent the

Court believes these paragraphs require a response, Phoenix Defendants deny

the same and demand strict proof thereof.

55. Phoenix Defendants deny paragraphs 107, 108, 109, and 110 of 

plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.
- 10 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

COUNT X – A.R.S. §§ 12-611 et seq., 14-3110

[WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL ACTION]

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

56. Paragraph 111 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint requires no 

response. To the extent the Court believes this paragraph requires a response,

Phoenix Defendants deny the same and demand strict proof thereof.

57. Phoenix Defendants affirmatively assert paragraphs 112 and 113 of 

plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint call for legal conclusions. To the extent the

Court believes these paragraphs require a response, Phoenix Defendants deny

the same and demand strict proof thereof.

58. Phoenix Defendants deny paragraphs 114, 115, and 116 of plaintiff’s 

First Amended Complaint.

COUNT XI – A.R.S. §§ 12-611 et seq., 14-3110

[WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL ACTION]

NEGLIGENCE

59. Paragraph 117 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint requires no 

response. To the extent the Court believes this paragraph requires a response,

Phoenix Defendants deny the same and demand strict proof thereof.

60. Phoenix Defendants affirmatively assert paragraphs 118, 119, 120, 

and 121 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint call for legal conclusions. To the 

extent the Court believes these paragraphs require a response, Phoenix 

Defendants deny the same and demand strict proof thereof.

61. Phoenix Defendants deny paragraphs 122, 123, 124, and 125 of 

plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.
- 11 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

COUNT XII – A.R.S. §§ 12-611 et seq., 14-3110

[WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL ACTION]

GROSS NEGLIGENCE

62. Paragraph 126 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint requires no 

response. To the extent the Court believes this paragraph requires a response,

Phoenix Defendants deny the same and demand strict proof thereof.

63. Phoenix Defendants affirmatively assert paragraphs 127, 128, 129, 

and 130 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint call for legal conclusions. To the 

extent the Court believes these paragraphs require a response, Phoenix 

Defendants deny the same and demand strict proof thereof.

64. Phoenix Defendants deny paragraphs 131, 132, 133, and 134 of 

plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

COUNT XIII – ARIZONA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (“ACRA”)

DISCRIMINATION

65. Paragraph 135 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint requires no 

response. To the extent the Court believes this paragraph requires a response,

Phoenix Defendants deny the same and demand strict proof thereof.

66. Phoenix Defendants affirmatively assert paragraphs 136, 137, and 

138 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint call for legal conclusions. To the extent 

the Court believes these paragraphs require a response, Phoenix Defendants 

deny the same and demand strict proof thereof.

67. Phoenix Defendants deny paragraphs 139 and 140 of plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint.

68. Phoenix Defendants affirmatively assert paragraphs 141 and 142 of 

plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint call for legal conclusions. To the extent the

Court believes these paragraphs require a response, Phoenix Defendants deny

the same and demand strict proof thereof.
- 12 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

69. Phoenix Defendants deny paragraphs 143, 144, 145, 146, and 147 of 

plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

COUNT XIV – A.R.S §§ 12-611 et seq., 14-3110

[WRONGFUL DEATH AND SURVIVAL ACTION]

NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, RETENTION, AND/OR TRAINING

70. Paragraph 148 of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint requires no 

response. To the extent the Court believes this paragraph requires a response,

Phoenix Defendants deny the same and demand strict proof thereof.

71. Phoenix Defendants affirmatively assert paragraph 149 of plaintiff’s 

First Amended Complaint calls for legal conclusions. To the extent the Court 

believes this paragraph requires a response, Phoenix Defendants deny the same

and demand strict proof thereof.

72. Phoenix Defendants deny paragraphs 150 and 151 of plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint.

STATE AND FEDERAL CLAIM

COUNT XV

CIVIL CONSPIRACY

73. Regarding paragraphs 152 to 159 of plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint, Phoenix Defendants affirmatively assert the Court has dismissed this 

Count. To the extent the Court believes these allegations require a response, 

Phoenix Defendants deny them.

74. Phoenix Defendants deny each and every allegation in plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint not specifically admitted in this Answer, including the 

allegations in plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief found on page 24, lines 1 to 17.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Phoenix Defendants set forth the following defenses to plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint. Some of the defenses outlined below are true affirmative 
- 13 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

defenses (on which Phoenix Defendants would bear the burden of proof). Other 

defenses are outlined for the purpose of placing plaintiff on notice of the legal 

defenses Phoenix Defendants will assert for the purpose of allowing plaintiff to fully 

evaluate her claims, as this relates to any future request by Phoenix Defendants 

for attorneys’ fees for any claim that is dismissed by the Court.

1. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted.

2. The Phoenix Defendants are entitled to all privileges and immunities, 

including qualified immunity, afforded to governmental employees and/or entities 

under federal and state law, including those privileges and immunities described 

in Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 (1991) and Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) 

and those provided in ARIZ. REV. STAT. §12-820, et seq.

3. To the extent plaintiff alleges use of force, the use of force in this 

matter was justified and privileged under Arizona’s justification statutes, including 

but not limited to ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 13-403, 13-409, 13-410, 13-411, and 13-413. 

In addition, the Phoenix Defendants are entitled to the privileges and immunities 

found in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 

(2007), and Kisela v. Hughes, ___ U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018). To the extent 

found justified under state law, ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 13-420 provides for attorneys’ 

fees and all costs to the prevailing defendants.

4. The Phoenix Defendants allege the immunities set forth in ARIZ. REV.

STAT. §§ 12-711, 12-712, and 12-716, including all applicable attorneys’ fees 

available under these sections.

5. At all times set forth in the First Amended Complaint, the Phoenix 

Defendants were acting reasonably, in good faith, without malice, and based upon 

probable cause and/or reasonable suspicion because Muhaymin had a valid 
- 14 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

outstanding warrant from the City of Mesa for Failure to Appear.

6. At all times set forth in the First Amended Complaint, the Phoenix 

Defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable under the totality of the 

circumstances then existing.

7. Neither the actions nor inactions of the Phoenix Defendants, their

employees, or agents, violated the state or federal constitutional rights of plaintiff 

or Muhaymin.

8. Neither Phoenix Defendants, nor their employees or agents breached 

any duty owed to plaintiff or to Muhaymin. The Phoenix Defendants deny that they, 

their employees, and/or their agents caused, or contributed to, the death of 

Muhaymin and the damages claimed by plaintiff.

9. Muhaymin’s constitutional rights allegedly violated by the Phoenix 

Defendants were not clearly established at the time of Muhaymin’s arrest and 

death.

10. Arizona is a comparative-fault state. Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and 

damages, if any, were the result of plaintiff’s and Muhaymin’s own negligence, 

failure to disclose, inattention, assumption of the risk, failure to mitigate, or other 

wrong or unsafe act, thereby reducing or eliminating plaintiff’s damages by the 

percentage of fault attributed to plaintiff and Muhaymin. This fault includes, but is 

not limited to, Muhaymin’s poor heath, acute methamphetamine intoxication, and 

plaintiff’s failure as his legal guardian to ensure he had proper housing and medical 

treatment.

11. In accordance with to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-2506, the primary causes

of Muhaymin’s death were coronary artery disease and acute methamphetamine 

intoxication, for which fault Muhaymin is solely responsible.

12. Plaintiff and Muhaymin were contributorily negligent and/or any 
- 15 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

damages received by plaintiff were the result of an intervening/superseding cause or 

occurred as a result of the negligence of someone other than the Phoenix

Defendants, all of which bars plaintiff’s recovery from the Phoenix Defendants.

13. Plaintiff’s damages and the death of Muhaymin may have been 

caused or contributed to by the acts of others, including those not named as 

defendants in this lawsuit. In accordance with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-2506, the 

Phoenix Defendants will ask the jury to consider the fault of other(s) and to 

apportion it accordingly.

14. The Phoenix Defendants are not subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 as plaintiff cannot prove any violations of custom/policy pursuant to Monell 

v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).

15. None of the Phoenix Defendants’ procedures, customs, training, 

hiring and/or supervision were deficient under state or federal law.

16. The Phoenix Defendants deny there were any constitutional violations 

by them and, as a result, plaintiff cannot recover under Monell for their actions in 

the absence of a constitutional violation.

17. Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is barred by Smith v. Wade, 416 

U.S. 30 (1983); City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 (1981); and 

Lancaster Community Hospital v. Antelope Valley Hospital District, 940 F.2d 397 

(9th Cir. 1991), and Arizona law in accordance with ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-820.04.

18. Muhaymin’s Estate is limited to the recovery of economic damages 

related to the decedent’s constitutional claims.

19. If the Phoenix Defendants are determined to be liable for the 

allegations contained in plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, then the Phoenix 

Defendants are entitled to contribution from other named and unnamed 

defendants under the Doctrine of Contribution.
- 16 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

20. Although the Phoenix Defendants do not presently have specific facts 

in support of the additional defenses stated in this paragraph, they which to put 

plaintiff on notice that they do not waive the right to assert each of the following 

defenses which, through subsequent discovery may be supported by the facts: 

lack of jurisdiction over the person, accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, 

discharge in bankruptcy, duress, estoppel, set-off, failure to join an indispensable 

party, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, laches, license, payment, release, 

res judicata, statute of frauds, statute of limitations, spoliation of the evidence, 

insufficiency of process and insufficiency of service of process and waiver and any 

affirmative defense available under FED. R. CIV. P. 8 and 12 as they may apply to 

this litigation.

21. Phoenix Defendants reserve the right to assert any other affirmative 

defenses which may become known during the course of discovery.

JURY DEMAND

In accordance with FED. R. CIV. P. 38(b), the Phoenix Defendants, 

collectively and each of them, demand a trial by jury.

Wherefore, having fully answered plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, the 

Phoenix Defendants request plaintiff takes nothing, and the Phoenix Defendants 

be awarded their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1988, and ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 12-349, 12-350, and 13-420, along with any other 

relief the Court deems just and proper.

DATED: March 15, 2019.

O’CONNOR & CAMPBELL, P.C.

By: /s/ Justin D. Holm

Daniel J. O’Connor, Jr.

Justin D. Holm

Attorneys for Defendants
- 17 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 15, 2019 I electronically filed the foregoing 

with the Clerk of the Court for the U.S. District Court, District of Arizona, using the 

CM/ECF System. A Notice of Electronic Filing will be served to the following 

registered participants:

David A. Chami

PRICE LAW GROUP, APC 

8245 N. 85th Way

Scottsdale, AZ 85258

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Haytham Faraj

LAW OFFICES OF HAYTHAM FARAJ 

1935 W Belmont Ave. 

Chicago, IL 60657

Attorney for Plaintiff

By: /s/ Amanda Bennett