Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McDowell v. Carroll County

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division

May 7, 2015

DAVID McDOWELL, Plaintiff,
v.
CARROLL COUNTY, IN, and PATRICK CLAWSON, in his personal and official capacities, Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

ANDREW P. RODOVICH, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the court on the Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses [DE 11] filed by the plaintiff, David McDowell, on March 13, 2015. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

Background

On December 24, 2014, the plaintiff, David McDowell, filed his Complaint, which alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and sought relief under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 1, 2008, McDowell was hired as the Director of the Carroll County Emergency Management Agency (EMA). McDowell has alleged that the EMA was an agency established under the laws of the State of Indiana.

McDowell has claimed that he signed one year employment contracts to remain the Director of the EMA in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, and that the contracts required thirty days written notice of termination. McDowell's contract was not renewed for 2013. He has alleged that his termination deprived him of a property interest without due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, he has claimed that the defendant, Patrick Clawson, made false, stigmatizing, and inflammatory public comments that have prevented him from pursuing his chosen occupation and have deprived him of a liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. Last, he has argued that the defendants terminated his contract because of his political affiliation in violation of the First Amendment.

In their Answer, the defendants pled nine affirmative defenses. McDowell has requested the court to strike the third, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, and ninth affirmative defenses. The affirmative defenses are listed as follows:

3. The allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint against these Defendants fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
4. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to hold the individual defendant liable under Indiana State Law, he is generally immune for losses which occur within the scope and course of his employment under the Indiana Tort Claims Act, I.C. § 34-13-3-5.
5. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to hold the individual defendant liable under Indiana State Law, he is generally immune for a loss which results from the performance of a discretionary task under I.C. § 34-13-3-3(7).
7. To the extent that Plaintiff's Complaint seeks punitive damages against Defendants, these claims are barred under the Indiana Tort Claims Act as punitive damages may not be recovered against Defendants, because at all relevant times Patrick Clawson was acting within the scope and course of his employment as an employee of a governmental entity. I.C. § 34-13-3-4(b).
8. These Defendants are otherwise immune under the Indiana Tort Claims Act, specifically I.C. § 34-13-3-3.
9. These Defendants reserve the right to plead additional affirmative defenses as they become known to them.

The defendants did not respond to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.