Electronically Filed Erica L, Wondfard, Cle Bb Couniy Superior Cou Docket Date: 8112017 11:34:13 AK Raven Alston IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF BIBB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA KENNETH JOHNSON and JACQUELYN * * JOHNSON, Plaintifts, CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 2017-CV-067039 vy. BRANDON BELL, et al., Defendants. RODNEY BRYAN, AMY BRASWELL, STEVE TURNER, DR. MARYANNE GAFFNEY-KRAFT, WES HORNE, AND LINDSAY MARCHANT’S SPECIAL APPEARANCE ANSWER TO COMPLAINT COME NOW Rodney Bryan, Amy Braswell, Steve ‘Tumer, Dr. Maryanne Gaffney-Kraft, Wes Hore, and Lindsay Marchant (hereafter collectively referred to as “State Defendants” or “these Defendants”), named as Defendants in the above styled civil action, appearing specially and without submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of this Court, and respond to Plaintiffs! Complaint as follows': FIRST DEFENSE The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. SECOND DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed duc to failure of process, * Alhough Defendants Bryan and Gaifhey-Kraft were served with process, they are not proper defendants in this action and, therefore, join in this Special Appearance Answer.improper service of process, insufficiency of service of process, and [ailure to comply with O.C.G.A, § 50-21-35. Specifically, Plaintiffs have failed to cause process to be served upon the chief executive officer of the state government entity involved at his or her usual office address and the Director of the Risk Management Division (“RMD”) of the Department of Administrative Services (“DOAS”) at his usual office address. Plaintiffs have also [ailed to mail to the Attorney General at his usual office address, by certified mail or statutory overnight delivery, retumn receipt requested, a copy of the Complaint showing the date of filing, SECOND DEFENSE, This Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants Braswell, Turner, Horne, and Marchant, as Plaintifis have not properly served process upon any of these Defendants. To the extent that Plaintiffs seek to have the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (“GBI”) substituted in for the State Defendants, personal jurisdiction as to the GBI is also lacking due to the failure to serve process on the chief executive officer of the GBI and RMD Director of DOAS. See the Second Delense, supra. THIRD Di NSE Subject matter jurisdiction is lacking to the extent that this action is barred by sovereign immunity.FOURTH DEFENSE These Defendants affirmatively deny that they were negligent or otherwise guilty of any wrongful act alleged in Plaintiffs! Complaint. FIETH DEFENSE Plaintifi have failed to follow the mandates concerning ante litem notice as set forth in O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26, with the result that this Court has no jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims against the Slate Defendants and, therefore, those claims should be dismissed. Plaintiffs’ action against these Defendants should be dismissed because all actions allegedly taken by them were taken while acting within the scope of their official duties or employment with a state goverment entity of the State of Georgia; thus, these Defendants are not subject to lawsuit or Liability therefor, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 50-21-25¢a). SEVENTH DEFENSE Plaintifis' action should be dismissed to the extent it seoks recovery for losses resulting from acts or omissions for which there is no waiver of sovercign immunity under the Georgia Tort Claims Act, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 50-21-24.EIGHTH DEFENSE No GBI employce commilted a negligent, or otherwise tortious, act or omission that would entitle the Plaintiffs to recover against the State Defendants in this case. NINTH DEFENSE Venue is improper in Bibb County. Venue would be proper in Lowndes County. See O.C.G.A_ § 50-21-28. ELEVENTH DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ action against these Defendants should be dismissed to the extent it seeks recovery for punitive damages or interest prior to judgment, because such damages and interest are not permitied pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 50-21-30, TWELFTH DEFENSE This action is barred by O.C.G.A. § 9-2-5, to the extent the cause of action asserted by the Plaintiffs herein was already pending in an action filed in Lowndes County Superior Court, bearing Civil Action No. 2015-CV-706, at the time this action was commenced in Bibb Superior Court. The pendency of the former action in Lowndes County is a defense to this latter action in Bibb County. See O.C.G.A. § 9-2-5(a).THIRTEENTH DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel FIFTEENTH DEFENSE Answering the specific paragraphs of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, these Defendants show the following: Response to Preliminary Statement Upon information and belief, these Defendants admit that Kenneth and Jacquelyn Johnson are the parents of Kendrick Lamar Johnson, who died at Lowndes County High School on January 10, 2013. ‘These Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ statement that Kendrick Johnson was killed. To the extent that the remaining portion of the Preliminary Statement raises allegations concerning the State Defendants, the State Defendants deny such allegations. RESPONSE TO JURISDICTION AND VENUE L These Defendants deny that this Court (or any court) has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims against these Defendants or the State. 2.These Defendants deny that venue is proper as to Plaintitfs’ claims against them because, under the Georgia Tort Claims Act, as amended effective July 1, 2017, venue is proper only in the county wherein the alleged tort giving rise to the loss occurred or where the Plaintiffs’ decedent died. See O.C.G.A. § 50-21-28. Lowndes County is the proper county for this action. RESPONSE TO PARTI 3. Upon information and beljef, these Defendants admit the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 3 of the Complaint. These Defendants deny all the remaining allegations in paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 4, —15. ‘The allegations in paragraphs 4 through 15 of the Complaint are not directed to these Defendants, and, therefore, no response is required from these Defendants. 16, Defendant Horne admits that he was and is a Special Agent assigned as a Crime Scene Specialist of the GBI. Defendant Horne denies that he can be individually named as a defendant and sued in a so-called “official capacity” or his so-called “individual capacity” for the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Under the GTCA, there is no “capacity” in which a state officer or employee maybe sued for alleged tortious acts or omissions that occurred while they were acting within the scope of their official duties or employment. Defendant Home denies that any service of process, other than personal service upon him, is proper and denies that he has been served with process in this case. 17. Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint is not directed to these Defendants and, therefore, no response is required from these Defendants. 18. Defendant Gatiney-Kratt admits that she was and is 4 medical examiner for the GBI. Defendant Gaffney-Kraft denies that she can be individually named as a defendant and sued in a so-called “official capacity” or a so-called “individual capacity” for the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Under the GICA, there is no “capacity” in which a state officer or employee may be sued for alleged tortious acs or omissions that occurred while they were acting within the scope of their official duties or employment. 19. Defendant Turner admits that he was a Special Agent with the GBI. Defendant Turner denies that he can be individually named as a defendant and sued in a so-called “official capacity” or a so-called “individual capacity” for the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Under the GTCA, there is no “capacity” inwhich a state officer or employee may be sued for alleged tortious acts or omissions that occurred while they were acting within the scope of their official duties or employment. Defendant Tuer denies that any service of process, other than personal service upon him, is proper, and denies that he has been served with process in this case. 20. Paragraph 20 of Plaintifis’ Complaint is not directed to these Defendants and, therefore, no response is required from these Defendants. 21. Defendant Marchant (not “Merehant”) admits that she was and is a Special Agent with the GBI, Defendant Marchant denies that she can be individually named as a defendant and sued in a so-called “official capacity” or a so-called “individual capacity” for the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Under the GTCA, there is no “capacity” in which a state officer or employee may be sued for alleged tortious acts or omissions that ocourred while they were acting within the scope of their official duties or employment. Dofendant Marchant denies that any service of process, other than personal service upon her, is proper, and denies that she has been served with process in this case.22. Paragraph 22 of Plaintitts’ Complaint is not directed to these Defendants and, therefore, no response is required from these Defendants. 23. Defendant Braswell admits that she was and is a Special Agent with the GBI Defendant Braswell denies that she can be individually named as a defendant and sued in a so-called “official capacity” or a so-called “individual capacity” for the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Under the GTCA, there is no “capacity” in which a state officer or employee may be sued for alleged tortious acts or omissions that occurred while they were acting within the scope of their official duties or employment. Defendant Braswell denies that any service of process, other than personel service upon her, is proper, and denies that she has been served with process in this case. 24,.— 40. Paragraphs 24 through and including paragraph 40 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint are not directed to these Defendants and, therefore, no response is required from these Defendants. 41. Detendant Bryan admits that he was and is a death investigator with the GBI. Defendant Bryan denies that he can be individually named as a defendantand sued in a so-calleé “official capacity” or a so-called “individual capacity” for the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Under the GTCA, there is no “capacity” in which a state officer or employee may be sued for alleged tortious acts or omissions that occurred while they were acting within the scope of their official duties or employment. RESPONSE TO FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS 42. Upon information and belief, these Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 42 of the Complaint. 43-45. These Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraphs 43 through and including paragraph 45, and thus can neither admit nor deny the same. 46. — 54. To the extent that the allegations in paragraphs 46 through and including 54 are directed towards these Defendants, these Defendants deny such allegations. 35.-57. These Defendants are without knowledge or information suflicient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraphs $5 through and including paragraph 37, and thus can neither admit nor deny the same.58. The State Defendant admit that, upon the request of the Lowndes County Sheriff's Office for assistance from GBI, Defendants Horne, Braswell, Perry, Marchant, Turner, and Callahan reported to Lowndes County High School to assist in the investigation. 59. ‘The State Defendants admit that, upon the request of the Lowndes County Sheriff's Office for assistance from GBI, Defendants Home, Braswell, Perry, Marchant, Turner, and Caltahan reported to Lowndes County High School to assist in the investigation. 60. These Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 60, and thus can neither admit nor deny the same. 61. To the extent that Plaintiffs are referring to a written report, that report speaks for itself and requires no response. Outside of any written report, these Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 61, and thus can neither admit nor deny the same,62,— 69. ‘These Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 62 through and including paragraph 69 of the Complaint. 70. These Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 70 of the Complaint, and thus can neither admit ner deny the same. n. These Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 71 of the Complaint. 72.—77. ‘These Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form, a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraphs 72 through and including paragraph 77, and thus can neither admit nor deny the same. 78. These Defendants admit that Defendant Gaffhey-Kraft performed an autopsy on the body of Kendrick Johnson on or about January 14, 2013. These Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as tothe truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 78, and thus can neither admit nor deny the same. 79.—81. These Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraphs 79 through and including 81, and thus can neither admit nor deny the same. 82. These Defendants admit that Plaintiffs contacted the GBI Crime Lab conceming the decedent’s clothing, These Defendants are without knowledge or information sufiicient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 82, and thus can neither admit nor deny the same. 83, In response to paragraph 83 of the Complaint, these Defendants admit that Plaintiffs were informed that the decedent’s clothing was released to Owen’s Transport Service. 84, These Defendants acimit the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 84 of the Complaint and deny any alleged involvement in an alleged conspiracy, but otherwise are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as tothe truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 84, and thus can neither admit nor deny the same. 85. To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 85 relate to the autopsy report, the autopsy report speaks for itself and no response is required from these Defendants. These Defendants deny any allegation that contradicts, misstates, or misrepresents the autopsy report, and deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 85 of the Complaint. 86. ‘The State Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 86 of the Complaint. 87.— 92. These Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraphs 87 through and including paragraph 92, and thus can neither admit nor deny the same. 93. The State Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 93 of the Complaint.94, The State Defendants deny that Dr. Anderson extended an invitation and deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 94. 95. The State Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 95 of the Complaint. 96. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 96 concern an alleged telephone conversation that Defendant Bryan had, the State Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ characterization of the substance of that conversation and deny that such statements were made. These Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 96, and thus can neither admit nor deny the same. 97.— 103. The allegations in paragraphs 97 through and including paragraph 103 are not directed to these Defendants and, therefore, no response is required from these Defendants, 104, Yo the extent that the allegations in paragraph 104 are directed to these Defendants, these Defendants deny such allegations.105, The allegations in paragraph 105 arc not directed to these Defendants and, therefore, no response is required from these Defendants. Nonetheless, the State Defendants deny that they “deliberately and maliciously mishandled the subject investigation ...” as alleged in paragraph 105 of the Complaint. 106, ‘The State Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 104 of the Complaint 107. The allegations in paragraph 107 are not directed to these Defendants and, therefore, no response is required from these Defendants. 108. - 110. The State Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 108 through and including paragraph 110 of the Complaint. RESPONSE TO FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION RICO CAUSE OF ACTION These Defendants re-allege and reassert herein, as if set forth in full, each and every defense and response contained in the preceding paragraphs and further respond:Wa. =117, The allegations in paragraphs 111 through and including paragraph 117 are not directed to these Defendants and, therefore, no response is required from these Defendants. 118, — 122. The State Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 118 through and including paragraph 122 of the Complaint, including all sub-parts. Second 122, — 124, The State Defendants deny the allegations in the Second paragraph 122 and paragraphs 123 and 124 of the Complaint, including all sub-parts. RESPONSE TO SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS UNDER STATE LAW These Defendants re-allege and reassert herein, as if set forth in full, each and every defense and response contained in the preceding paragraphs and further respond; Second 124. In response to the allegations contained in the second paragraph 124 of the Complaint, these Defendants show that their duties are as provided by law and cannot be altered or expanded by Plaintiffs’ allegations, and deny that they havebreached any applicable duty in connection with the facts and circumstances at issue in this case. 125. — 127. These Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 125 through and including paragraph 127. RESPONSE TO THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER STATE LAW These Defendants re-allege and reassert herein, as if set forth in futl, each and every defense and response contained in the preceding paragraphs and further respond: 128. In response to the allegations contained in the second paragraph 124 of the Complaint, these Defendants show that their duties are as provided by law and cannot be altered or expanded by Plaintiffs’ allegations, and deny that they have breached any applicable duty in connection with the facts and circumstances at issue in this case. 129.-131. ‘The State Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 129 through and including paragraph 131 of the Complaint.RESPONSE TO FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION FOR INJUCTIVE RELIEF These Defendants re-allege and reassert herein, as if'set forth in full, each and every defense and response contained in the preceding paragraphs and further respond: 132, ‘These Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 132 of the Complaint. 133. In response to the allegations contained in paragraph 123 of the Complaint, these Defendants show that Defendant Gaffney-Kraft’s duties are as provided by law and cannot be altered or expanded by Plaintiff®’ allegations, and deny that said Defendant breached any applicable duty in connection with the facts and circumstances at issue tn this case. 134,— 139. The State Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 134 through and including paragraph 139 of the Complaint. RESPONSE TO FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ‘These Defendants re-allege and reassert herein, as if set forth in full, each and every defense and response contained in the preceding paragraphs and further respond:140. — 146. The allegations in paragraphs 140 through and including paragraph 146 are not directed to these Defendants and, therefore, no response is required by these Defendants. RESPONSE TO SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUD THROUGH STATEMENTS AND SILENCE These Defendants re-allege and reassert herein, as if set forth in full, cach and every defense and response contained in the preceding paragraphs and further respond: 147,-151. The allegations in paragraphs 147 through and including paragraph 151 are not directed to these Defendants and, therefore, no response is required by these Defendants. 152. — 156. ‘The State Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 152 through and including paragraph 156 of the Complaint to the extent they may be directed to these Defendants,‘These Defendants deny any and all other allegations in the Complaint not referred to herein specifically, deny all Prayers of Relief of the Complaint, and deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover against these Defendants in this case. THESE DEFENDANTS DEMAND A TRIAL BY A TWELVE (12) PERSON JURY ON ANY ISSUE OF FACT NOT CAPABLE OF RESOLUTION AS A MATTER OF LAW. WHEREFORE, having fully responded to the allegations of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the State Defendants pray that they be dismissed with costs taxed to the Plaintiffs. Respectfully submitted, CHRISTOPHER M. CARR 551540 Attorney General KATHLEEN M. PACIOUS 558555 Deputy Attorney General LORETTA L. PINKSTON-POPE 580385 Senior Assistant Attorney General ésf RON BOYTER RON BOYTER, 073553 Assistant Attorney GeneralPLEASE ADDRESS ALL COMMUNICATIONS TO: RON BOYTER Assistant Attorney General 40 Capitol Square, SW Atlanta, Georgia 30334-1300 Telephone: (404) 656-3370 rboyter@law.ga.g0vCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Tdo hereby certify that 1 have this day filed a copy of the and foreycing RODNEY BRYAN, AMY BRASWELL, STEVE TURNER, DR. MARYANNE GAFFNEY-KRAFT, WES HORNE, AND LINDSAY MARCHANT’S SPECIAL APPEARANCE ANSWER TO COMPLAINT asing the Odyssey F- File Georgia system which will sutomatically sond cmail notification of such filing to all Judges and opposing counsel of record tisted in the ease, and by depositing a capy thereof, postage prepaid, in the United States Mail properly addressed upon the following: CHEVENE B. KING, JR. THE C B KING LAW FIRM PO BOX 3468 ALBANY GA 31706-3468 chkingx916@aol.com Altorney for Plaintiffs, Kenneth Johnson and Jacquelyn Johnson PATRICK O°CONNOR OLIVER MANER LLP PO BOX 10186 SAVANNAII GA 31412-0386 plo@olivermaner.com Attorney for Defendants, Brandon Bell, Brian Bell, Rick Bell GEORGE T TALLEY COLEMAN TALLEY LLP PO BOX 5437 VALDOSTA GA 31603-3437 evorge lalley(@colemaaalley.com Attorney for Defendants, City of Valdosta, Georgia, a municipal carporation: Frank Simmons; Larry Hanson; Shannen Salters; Ray McGraw BRICE LADSON LADSON LAW FIRM PC PO BOX 2819 RICHMOND HILL GA 31324-2819 mbrice@ladsonlaw.com Attorney for Defendams, Brandon Bell, Brian Bell, Rick Beli PAUJ. THRELKELD OLIVER MANER LLP PO BOX 10186 SAVANNAH GA 31412-0386 pht@olivermanet.com, Attarney for Defendans, Brandon Belt, Brian Bell, Rick Bell ‘TIMOTHY M TANNER COLFMAN TALLEY LLP PO BOX $437 VALDOSTA GA 31603-5437 tim.tanner@colemantalley.com Attorney for Defendants, City of Valdosta, Georgia, a municipal corporation; Frank Simmons; Larry Hanson; Shannon Saiters; Ray McGrawL WARREN TURNER IR. WAYNE § MELNICK PO BOX 157 FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY LLP VALDOSTA GA 31603-0157 100 GALLERIA PKWY SE STE 1600 wanen@lwtumerlaw.com, AILANTA GA 30339-5948, vamelnick@finglaw.com Atierney for Dejendont, Wes Taylor Attorney for Defendant, Wes Taylor JAMES ELLIOTT ELLIOTT, BLACKBURN & GOODING, P.C. 3016 N PATTERSON ST VALDOSTA GEORGIA 31602-1711 jelliott@ebbglaw.com Attorney for Defendants, James D. Thormon; Investigator Jack Winninaham; Cpt. Wanda Babwards; Li. Stryele Jones; Sgt. Aaron Pritchet: Maj. Logai Henderson; Dep. Randy Lightsey, Dep. Michael Adams; Investigator Jack Priddy; Dep. Kerry Quinn; Dep. Christi Griffin; Dep. Bryce Whitener: Dep. Christopher Burke; Det. Troy Black, Det. Howard Fisher; Det. Mark Maskule; Det. Roy Hart: Det. John Marion This 11" day of August, 2017. {sf RON BOYTER RON BOYTER 073553 Assistant Attorney General