Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SHOMARI STATEN, §
§
Plaintiff, §
vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-CV-00342
§
THE CITY OF CARROLLTON, TEXAS §
and OFFICER DAVID TATOM, §
§
Defendants. §
Defendant David Tatom (“Officer Tatom”) files his original answer to Plaintiff’s
paragraph 2.
4. Admits that jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court, but denies that
Officer Tatom or the City of Carrollton violated any federal statute or any constitutional
rights of Plaintiff.
belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 7, and therefore denies the same.
8. Admits that, on February 21, 2009, Plaintiff was a passenger in a Blue Geo
Prizm vehicle with another African-American male, parked in a shopping center parking
lot in Carrollton, Texas, but states that he is without knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 8, and therefore
belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 9, and therefore denies the same.
10. Admits that the squad car that pulled up behind Plaintiff had its emergency
lights on, but can neither admit nor deny the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph
window of the vehicle in which Mr. Carter and Plaintiff were seated; admits that Plaintiff
was seated on the passenger side; states that he is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations that Plaintiff recognized the
officer who initially approached him; and denies the remaining allegations in
paragraph 11.
12. Admits that Plaintiff got out of the car, and denies the remaining allegations
in paragraph 12.
16. Admits that other officers arrived; admits that Plaintiff was released and
that his weapon and ammunition were returned; and denies the remaining allegations in
paragraph 16.
17. On information and belief, admits that Plaintiff filed an Open Records
Request to obtain a copy of the police video that recorded the incident and denies the
belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 18, and therefore denies the same.
belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 19, and therefore denies the same.
belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 20, and therefore denies the same.
belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 21, and therefore denies the same.
belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 22, and therefore denies the same.
belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 23, and therefore denies the same.
26. Admits that, at the time of Plaintiff’s arrest, Defendants were acting under,
and in accordance with, state and federal law and the regulations of the City of Carrollton
required, but to the extent required, denies the allegations in paragraph 27.
28. Incorporates his answers to paragraphs 1 – 27 and admits that Plaintiff was
charged with resisting arrest and failing to show his concealed handgun license when
asked for identification and denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 28.
29. Incorporates his answers to paragraphs 1-28 and denies the allegations in
paragraph 29.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
40. On February 21, 2009, Officers Palmer and Tatom responded to a 911 call
from citizens who witnessed Plaintiff removing license plates from a vehicle in a public
parking lot.
41. Officer Palmer approached Plaintiff and Mr. Carter and requested
identification.
CODE § 411.205.
44. Plaintiff exited the vehicle in the direction of Officer Tatom, without
Officer Tatom’s request, but with Plaintiffs left hand concealed in his jacket pocket.
45. In accordance with his training and nationally recognized and adopted
police procedures, Officer Tatom immediately restrained Plaintiff and searched him for
weapons.
46. In the course of his search, Officer Tatom located a concealed handgun in
47. In accordance with his training and nationally recognized and adopted
police procedures, Officer Tatom placed Plaintiff under control using an approved
takedown technique.
49. Plaintiff resisted arrest, repeatedly tried to get up, and did not comply with
to him.
51. Officer Tatom acted lawfully at all times and did not violate any rights of
52. Plaintiff’s claims against Officer Tatom are barred by the doctrine of
qualified immunity. At all material times, Officer Tatom acted pursuant to his authority
as an officer of the City of Carrollton. Further, he acted in accordance with both the U.S.
Constitution and the policies and procedures of the City of Carrollton. His conduct did
not violate any constitutional right of Plaintiff, much less a clearly established right.
others pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §33.001, et. seq.
55. Plaintiff’s claims for damages and exemplary or “punitive” damages are
limited by the United States Constitution, statutory and common law of the State of
PRAYER
Officer Tatom respectfully requests that upon final hearing, Plaintiff take nothing
by way of his Complaint and that Officer Tatom recover his costs, including his
reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred herein, and have all such other and further relief to
Respectfully submitted,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that all attorneys deemed to accept service of the above-referenced
document electronically will be notified via the Court’s CM/ECF system and all others
will be notified via certified mail, return receipt requested, on this the 22nd day of March,
2010.