UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAMON NATHANIEL,

Plaintiff,

United States District Court

Case No. 2:09-cv-12473

vs. Hon. Patrick J. Duggan

CITY OF DETROIT, a municipal corporation,

DETROIT POLICE OFFICER BARBARA SIMON,

Officially and Individually,

DETROIT POLICE DETECTIVE IRA TODD,

Officially and Individually,

DETROIT POLICE LIEUTENANT HAROLD ROCHON,

Officially and Individually,

Defendants.

 

DAVID A. ROBINSON (P38754)

THEOPHILUS E. CLEMONS (P47991)

Robinson and Associates, P.C.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

28145 Greenfield Road, Suite 100

Southfield, MI 48076

(248) 423-7234

darjd@earthlink.net

attyclemons@netscape.com

JANE KENT MILLS (P38251)

City of Detroit Law Department

Attorney for Defendants

660 Woodward Avenue, Suite 1650

Detroit, MI 48226

(313) 237-5060

millj@detroitmi.gov

 

 

DEFENDANT BARBARA SIMON’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

NOW COMES Defendant Barbara Simon only, and for her Answer to the Complaint states

as follows:

INTRODUCTORY AND JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENTS

Case 2:09-cv-12473-PJD-MJH ECF No. 7, PageID.80 Filed 07/15/09 Page 1 of 19
1. No answer is necessary as to Plaintiff’s statements of the claim.

2. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

3. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

4. Defendant neither admits nor deniesthe allegation beingwithoutsufficient knowledge

or information to affirm or deny the truth thereof. Defendant leaves Plaintiff to his proofs.

5. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant admits the allegation regarding her

employment by the City of Detroit. Defendant neither admits nor denies the remainder of the

allegation being without sufficient knowledge or information to affirm or deny the truth thereof.

Defendant leaves Plaintiff to his proofs.

6. No answer is necessary as the individual Defendant has not yet been served with a

Summons and Complaint. Notwithstanding that fact, Defendant objects to the allegation on the

grounds that it constitutes a legal conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant neither

admits nor denies the allegation being without sufficient knowledge or information to affirm or deny

the truth thereof. Defendant leaves Plaintiff to his proofs.

7. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegation being

without sufficient knowledge or information to affirm or deny the truth thereof. Defendant leaves

Plaintiff to his proofs.

8. Defendant admits the allegation.

9. Defendant neither admits nor deniesthe allegation being withoutsufficient knowledge

Case 2:09-cv-12473-PJD-MJH ECF No. 7, PageID.81 Filed 07/15/09 Page 2 of 19
or information to affirm or deny the truth thereof. Defendant leaves Plaintiff to his proofs.

10. Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests a judgment for no cause for action.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

11. Defendant re-alleges and re-incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 10 as

though fully set forth herein.

12. Defendant neither admits nor deniesthe allegation beingwithoutsufficient knowledge

or information to affirm or deny the truth thereof. Defendant leaves Plaintiff to his proofs.

13. Defendant neither admits nor deniesthe allegation being withoutsufficient knowledge

or information to affirm or deny the truth thereof. Defendant leaves Plaintiff to his proofs.

14. Defendant neither admits nor deniesthe allegation being withoutsufficient knowledge

or information to affirm or deny the truth thereof. Defendant leaves Plaintiff to his proofs.

15. Defendant neither admits nor deniesthe allegation beingwithoutsufficient knowledge

or information to affirm or deny the truth thereof. Defendant leaves Plaintiff to his proofs.

16. Defendant neither admits nor deniesthe allegation being withoutsufficient knowledge

or information to affirm or deny the truth thereof. Defendant leaves Plaintiff to his proofs.

17. Defendant neither admits nor deniesthe allegation beingwithoutsufficient knowledge

or information to affirm or deny the truth thereof. Defendant leaves Plaintiff to his proofs.

18. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegation being

without sufficient knowledge or information to affirm or deny the truth thereof. Defendant leaves

Plaintiff to his proofs.

19. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

Case 2:09-cv-12473-PJD-MJH ECF No. 7, PageID.82 Filed 07/15/09 Page 3 of 19
conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

20. Defendant neither admits nor deniesthe allegation beingwithoutsufficient knowledge

or information to affirm or deny the truth thereof. Defendant leaves Plaintiff to his proofs.

21. Defendant neither admits nor deniesthe allegation being withoutsufficient knowledge

or information to affirm or deny the truth thereof. Defendant leaves Plaintiff to his proofs.

22. Defendant neither admits nor deniesthe allegation beingwithoutsufficient knowledge

or information to affirm or deny the truth thereof. Defendant leaves Plaintiff to his proofs.

23. Defendant neither admits nor deniesthe allegation being withoutsufficient knowledge

or information to affirm or deny the truth thereof. Defendant leaves Plaintiff to his proofs.

24. Defendant neither admits nor deniesthe allegation being withoutsufficient knowledge

or information to affirm or deny the truth thereof. Defendant leaves Plaintiff to his proofs.

25. Defendant neither admits nor deniesthe allegation beingwithoutsufficient knowledge

or information to affirm or deny the truth thereof. Defendant leaves Plaintiff to his proofs.

26. Defendant neither admits nor deniesthe allegation being withoutsufficient knowledge

or information to affirm or deny the truth thereof. Defendant leaves Plaintiff to his proofs.

27. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

28. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

29. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

30. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the

Case 2:09-cv-12473-PJD-MJH ECF No. 7, PageID.83 Filed 07/15/09 Page 4 of 19
allegation as untrue.

31. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

32. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

33. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the

allegation as untrue.

34. Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

35. Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

36. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

37. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

38. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

39. Defendant neither admits nor deniesthe allegation beingwithoutsufficient knowledge

or information to affirm or deny the truth thereof. Defendant leaves Plaintiff to his proofs.

40. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

41. Defendant neither admits nor deniesthe allegation beingwithoutsufficient knowledge

or information to affirm or deny the truth thereof. Defendant leaves Plaintiff to his proofs.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests a judgment for no cause for action.

Case 2:09-cv-12473-PJD-MJH ECF No. 7, PageID.84 Filed 07/15/09 Page 5 of 19
COUNT I: 42 USC 1983 AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS

42. Defendant re-alleges and re-incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 41 as

though fully set forth herein.

43. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

44. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

45. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests a judgment for no cause for action.

COUNT II: 42 USC 1983 AGAINST THE CITY OF DETROIT

46. Defendant re-alleges and re-incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 45 as

though fully set forth herein.

47. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegation being

without sufficient knowledge or information to affirm or deny the truth thereof. Defendant leaves

Plaintiff to his proofs.

48. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

49. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

50. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

Case 2:09-cv-12473-PJD-MJH ECF No. 7, PageID.85 Filed 07/15/09 Page 6 of 19
51. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

52. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

53. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

54. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

55. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

56. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

57. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests a judgment for no cause for action.

COUNT III: SUPERVISORY LIABILITY AGAINST

HAROLD ROCHON, BARBARA SIMON AND IRA TODD

58. Defendant re-alleges and re-incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 57 as

though fully set forth herein.

59. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

60. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

Case 2:09-cv-12473-PJD-MJH ECF No. 7, PageID.86 Filed 07/15/09 Page 7 of 19
61. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests a judgment for no cause for action.

COUNT IV: VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1985 (3): CONSPIRACY

TO VIOLATE THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF DAMON NATHANIEL

62. Defendant re-alleges and re-incorporatesitsresponses to Paragraphs 1 through 61 as

though fully set forth herein.

63. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

64. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

65. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

66. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests a judgment for no cause for action.

COUNT V: MALICIOUS PROSECTION UNDER 42 USC 1983

67. Defendant re-alleges and re-incorporatesits responses to Paragraphs 1 through 66 as

though fully set forth herein.

68. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

69. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

Case 2:09-cv-12473-PJD-MJH ECF No. 7, PageID.87 Filed 07/15/09 Page 8 of 19
70. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests a judgment for no cause for action.

COUNT VI: ASSAULT AND BATTERY

71. Defendant re-alleges and re-incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 70 as

though fully set forth herein.

72. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

73. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

74. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests a judgment for no cause for action.

COUNT VII: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

75. Defendant re-alleges and re-incorporates itsresponsesto Paragraphs 1 through 74 as

though fully set forth herein.

76. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

77. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

78. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

79. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

Case 2:09-cv-12473-PJD-MJH ECF No. 7, PageID.88 Filed 07/15/09 Page 9 of 19
conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

80. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests a judgment for no cause for action.

COUNT VIII: FALSE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT

81. Defendant re-alleges and re-incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 80 as

though fully set forth herein.

82. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

83. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

84. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

85. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

86. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests a judgment for no cause for action.

COUNT IX: GROSS NEGLIGENCE

87. Defendant re-alleges and re-incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 86 as

though fully set forth herein.

88. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

Case 2:09-cv-12473-PJD-MJH ECF No. 7, PageID.89 Filed 07/15/09 Page 10 of 19
89. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

90. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

91. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests a judgment for no cause for action.

COUNT X: MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

92. Defendant re-alleges and re-incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 91 as

though fully set forth herein.

93. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegation being

without sufficient knowledge or information to affirm or deny the truth thereof. Defendant leaves

Plaintiff to his proofs.

94. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

95. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests a judgment for no cause for action.

DAMAGES

96. Defendant re-alleges and re-incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 95 as

though fully set forth herein.

97. Defendant objects to the allegation on the grounds that it constitutes a legal

Case 2:09-cv-12473-PJD-MJH ECF No. 7, PageID.90 Filed 07/15/09 Page 11 of 19
conclusion. Notwithstanding the objection, Defendant denies the allegation as untrue.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests a judgment for no cause for action.

Respectfully submitted,

S/ Jane Kent Mills

JANE KENT MILLS (P-38251)

CITY OF DETROIT LAW DEPARTMENT

Attorney for Defendant

660 Woodward, Suite 1650

Detroit, MI 48226

(313) 237-5060

Dated: July 15, 2009 Millj@law.ci.detroit.mi.us

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAMON NATHANIEL,

Plaintiff,

United States District Court

Case No. 2:09-cv-12473

vs. Hon. Patrick J. Duggan

CITY OF DETROIT, a municipal corporation,

DETROIT POLICE OFFICER BARBARA SIMON,

Officially and Individually,

DETROIT POLICE DETECTIVE IRA TODD,

Officially and Individually,

DETROIT POLICE LIEUTENANT HAROLD ROCHON,

Officially and Individually,

Defendants.

 

DAVID A. ROBINSON (P38754)

THEOPHILUS E. CLEMONS (P47991)

Robinson and Associates, P.C.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

28145 Greenfield Road, Suite 100

Southfield, MI 48076

JANE KENT MILLS (P38251)

City of Detroit Law Department

Attorney for Defendants

660 Woodward Avenue, Suite 1650

Detroit, MI 48226

(313) 237-5060

Case 2:09-cv-12473-PJD-MJH ECF No. 7, PageID.91 Filed 07/15/09 Page 12 of 19
K:\DOCS\LIT\millj\a37000\capt_blk\JR4947.WPD

(248) 423-7234

darjd@earthlink.net

attyclemons@netscape.com

millj@detroitmi.gov

 

 

DEFENDANT BARBARA SIMON’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Plaintiff’s claims are barred the applicable statute of limitations.

2. This court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action.

3. Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel.

4. Plaintiff lacks standing to bring the instant claim.

5. Plaintiff’s state remedies are adequate.

6. Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative and/or state remedies.

7. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

8. Defendant’s alleged actions do not constitute a government policy or custom.

9. Defendant claims the rights, privileges, and immunities of 42 USC §1983.

10. Defendant claims the rights, privileges, and immunities of the 11th Amendment to the

 United States Constitution. 

11. Individually named Defendant is immune from liability in the instant case.

12. Plaintiff’s complaint is not ripe.

13. Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the doctrine of governmental immunity.

14. Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the equitable doctrines of laches, waiver, and

 estoppel.

Case 2:09-cv-12473-PJD-MJH ECF No. 7, PageID.92 Filed 07/15/09 Page 13 of 19
15. Plaintiff was not deprived of any right, privilege or immunity secured to it under

 the United States Constitution, the Michigan Constitution or the laws of the United States or the

State of Michigan.

16. Defendant is immune from tort liability under Michigan Law.

17. Defendant did not have the requisite intent.

18. There was no agreement between the parties to deprive Plaintiff of any protected

 right.

19. There was no overt act by any of the Defendants or other person.

20. There was no actual injury to Plaintiff or any deprivation or right.

21. No criminal proceeding was initiated or continued by this Defendant.

22. If there was any criminal proceeding, it did not terminate in favor of the plaintiff.

23. The arrest and subsequent proceedings were supported by probable cause.\

24. Defendant did not act with malice or other improper purpose.

25. Any injury suffered by the Plaintiff was proximately caused by his own conduct

 that was seriously wrongful and unlawful. Recovery is therefore barred by the wrongful-conduct

rule.

26. This Defendant is immune from tort liability under Michigan Law. MCL

 691.1407.

27. Plaintiff did not sustain any special injury or damages.

28. Plaintiff was not placed in apprehension of imminent bodily contact. 

29. Plaintiff was not damaged by defendant’s conduct.

30. There was no physical contact between Plaintiff and Defendant.

31. Plaintiff consented to Defendant’s actions.

Case 2:09-cv-12473-PJD-MJH ECF No. 7, PageID.93 Filed 07/15/09 Page 14 of 19
32. This Defendant pleads the defense of comparative negligence in the event that

 negligence or other wrongdoing of the Plaintiff contributed to the alleged injuries.

33. To the extent, if any, that force was used upon Plaintiff by this Defendant, the use

 of force was privileged and lawful because the force was used in self-defense.

34. To the extent, if any, that force was used upon Plaintiff by this Defendant, the use

 of force was privileged and lawful because the force was reasonably used to effect a lawful arrest

or to perform other lawful police duties.

35. The Plaintiff’s damages, if any, may have been, in whole or in part, the proximate

 result of his own contributory or comparative negligence, gross negligence, recklessness or

intentional misconduct.

36. Plaintiff’s damages, if any, may have been caused in whole or in part, by the acts

 or omissions of parties other than Defendant.

37. Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages.

38. Defendants’ conduct was not extreme, outrageous, intentional or reckless.

39. Defendants’ actions did not cause Plaintiff any emotional distress.

40. Plaintiff did not suffer any emotional distress or any severe emotional distress.

41. Plaintiff was not arrested.

42. If arrested, Plaintiff’s arrest was supported by probable cause.

43. Plaintiff’s arrest was pursuant to a valid warrant.

44. Plaintiff’s arrest was supported by the officer’s good faith.

45. Defendants’ conduct was not grossly negligent in that it was not so reckless as to 

 demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted.

46. Plaintiff’s exemplary damages claim is duplicative of his other claims for relief.

Case 2:09-cv-12473-PJD-MJH ECF No. 7, PageID.94 Filed 07/15/09 Page 15 of 19
47. Defendant’s conduct was insufficient to justify an exemplary damage award. 

48. Plaintiff’s exemplary damage claim seeks to punish defendants for their conduct

 rather than compensate the plaintiff, in a manner prohibited by law.

49. Defendant claims the rights, privileges, and immunities of MCL Section 780.581

 et seq.

50. Plaintiff’s claims are inconsistent with one another.

51. Defendant reserves the right to plead such additional defenses as may become

 known through research, investigation, discovery or otherwise.

WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully requests dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims or a

judgment of No Cause of action on those claims, as well as an award of attorney fees and costs

against the Plaintiff.

Respectfully submitted, 

S/ Jane Kent Mills

JANE KENT MILLS (P-38251)

CITY OF DETROIT LAW DEPARTMENT

Attorney for Defendant

660 Woodward, Suite 1650

Detroit, MI 48226

(313) 237-5060

Millj@law.ci.detroit.mi.us

Dated: July 15, 2009

Case 2:09-cv-12473-PJD-MJH ECF No. 7, PageID.95 Filed 07/15/09 Page 16 of 19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAMON NATHANIEL,

Plaintiff,

United States District Court

Case No. 2:09-cv-12473

vs. Hon. Patrick J. Duggan

CITY OF DETROIT, a municipal corporation,

DETROIT POLICE OFFICER BARBARA SIMON,

Officially and Individually,

DETROIT POLICE DETECTIVE IRA TODD,

Officially and Individually,

DETROIT POLICE LIEUTENANT HAROLD ROCHON,

Officially and Individually,

Defendants.

 

DAVID A. ROBINSON (P38754)

THEOPHILUS E. CLEMONS (P47991)

Robinson and Associates, P.C.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

28145 Greenfield Road, Suite 100

Southfield, MI 48076

(248) 423-7234

darjd@earthlink.net

attyclemons@netscape.com

JANE KENT MILLS (P38251)

City of Detroit Law Department

Attorney for Defendants

660 Woodward Avenue, Suite 1650

Detroit, MI 48226

(313) 237-5060

millj@detroitmi.gov

 

 

RELIANCE UPON JURY DEMAND

NOW COMES Defendant Barbara Simon, and hereby relies upon the jury demand filed by

Case 2:09-cv-12473-PJD-MJH ECF No. 7, PageID.96 Filed 07/15/09 Page 17 of 19
Plaintiff in the above captioned matter.

/s/ Jane Kent Mills 

JANE KENT MILLS (P-38251)

Attorney for Defendant City 

CITY OF DETROIT LAW DEPARTMENT

660 Woodward, Suite 1650

Detroit, MI 48226

(313) 237-5060

Dated: July 15, 2009 Millj@law.ci.detroit.mi.us

Case 2:09-cv-12473-PJD-MJH ECF No. 7, PageID.97 Filed 07/15/09 Page 18 of 19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 15, 2009 I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the

 Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the

 following:

DAVID A. ROBINSON (P38754)

THEOPHILUS E. CLEMONS (P47991)

ROBINSON and ASSOCIATES, P.C.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

28145 Greenfield Road, Suite 100

Southfield, MI 48076

(248) 423-7234

darjd@earthlink.net

attyclemons@netscape.com

and hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the paper to the following

non-ECF participant(s):

None.

/s/ Jane Kent Mills 

JANE KENT MILLS (P-38251)

City of Detroit Law Department

Attorney for Defendants

660 Woodward, Suite 1650

Detroit, MI 48226

(313) 237-5060

MillJ@law.ci.detroit.mi.us

Case 2:09-cv-12473-PJD-MJH ECF No. 7, PageID.98 Filed 07/15/09 Page 19 of 19