Hunter v. Salem, Missouri, City of et al

Filing 16

ANSWER to Complaint by Board of Trustees, Salem Public Library.(Wilson, Matthew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

ANAKA HUNTER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CITY OF SALEM, MISSOURI,
)
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Salem Public )
Library, and GLENDA WOFFORD,
)
Individually, and in her official capacity )
As Director of the Salem Public Library, )
)
Defendants.
)

Case No: 4:12-CV-0004-ERW

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE SALEM, MISSOURI PUBLIC LIBRARY
COMES NOW Defendant Board of Trustees of the Salem, Missouri Public Library,
(hereinafter the “Board of Trustees”) by and through its attorneys of record, Baird, Lighter,
Millsap & Harpool, P.C., and states the following to the court for its answer to Plaintiff’s
complaint.
1.

Defendant Board of Trustees denies and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 1.

2.

Defendant Board of Trustees admits so much of Paragraph 2 as alleges that

Plaintiff purports to bring this action for violations of her First Amendment rights, made
applicable through the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendant denies the remaining allegations set
forth in Paragraph 2.
3.

Defendant admits so much of paragraph 3 as alleges that Plaintiff is seeking

declaratory and injunctive relief, along with monetary damages, and denies the remaining
allegations of paragraph 3, if any.
1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4.

Defendant admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 4.

5.

Defendant admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 5.
PARTIES

6.

Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 and, therefore, denies the same.
7.

Defendant admits that Salem Public Library is located in Salem, Missouri, and is

established pursuant to § 182.140, RSMo. Defendant denies the remaining allegations set forth
in Paragraph 7, if any.
8.

Defendant admits so much of Paragraph 8 as alleges the City of Salem is a

municipality and political subdivision of the state of Missouri. By way of further answer,
Defendant avers that Salem Public Library is an entity duly established pursuant to § 182.140,
RSMo, and denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 8.
9.

Defendant admits that the Board of Trustees of the Salem Public Library is a body

corporate subject to § 182.200, RSMo, and denies the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 9, if any.
10.

Defendant admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 10.

11.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 11.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

12.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 12.

13.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 13.

14.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 14.

15.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 15.

2

16.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 16.

17.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 17.

18.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 18.

19.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 19.

20.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 20.

21.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 21.

22.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 22.

23.

Defendant admits so much of Paragraph 23 as alleges that Plaintiff attended a

meeting of the Salem Library Board of Trustees on November 8, 2010. Defendant denies the
remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 23, if any.
24.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 24.

25.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 25.

26.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 26.

27.

Defendant admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 27.

28.

Defendant admits so much of Paragraph 28 as alleges the Library is obligated to

comply with CIPA. Defendant denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 28, if any.
29.

Paragraph 29 contains only legal conclusions and, therefore, requires no response

from this Defendant. To the extent a response may be deemed required, Defendant denies each
and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 29.
30.

Paragraph 30 contains only legal conclusions and, therefore, requires no response

from this Defendant. To the extent a response may be deemed required, Defendant denies each
and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 30.

3

31.

Defendant states that the statute cited speaks for itself and, therefore, this

Paragraph requires no response from this Defendant. To the extent a response may be required,
Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 31.
32.

Defendant admits so much of Paragraph 32 as alleges that internet service to the

Library is filtered to limit access to material that is restricted by state and federal law. Defendant
denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 32, if any.
33.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 33.

34.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 34.

35.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 35.

36.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 36.

37.

Defendant lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 37 and, therefore, denies same.
38.

Defendant admits so much of Paragraph 38 as alleges that some of the funds

employed to provide internet access to the public are collected from taxpayers. Defendant denies
each and every remaining allegation set forth in Paragraph 38, if any.
39.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 39.

40.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 40.

41.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 41.

42.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 42.

43.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 43.

44.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 44.

45.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 45.

46.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 46.

4

47.
48.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 48.

49.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 49.

50.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 50.

51.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 51.

52.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 52.

53.

`

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 47.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 53, including

subparts (a) through (h).
54.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 54, including

subparts (a) through (d).
55.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 55.

56.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 56.

57.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 57.

58.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 58.

59.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 59.

60.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 60.

61.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 61.

62.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 62.
COUNT I
Free Speech Clause

63.

Defendant restates and incorporates by this reference the responses set forth in the

foregoing Paragraphs 1 – 62 as though fully set forth herein.
64.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 64.

65.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 65.
5

66.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 66.

67.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 67.

68.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 68.

69.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 69.

70.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 70.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant Board
of Trustees respectfully requests that Plaintiff take nothing in this suit and that Defendant Board
of Trustees be discharged thereon and recover its costs of court and expenses, and for such other
and further relief to which Defendant may show itself justly entitled.
COUNT II
Establishment Clause
71.

Defendant restates and incorporates by this reference the responses set forth in the

foregoing Paragraphs 1 – 70 as though fully set forth herein.
72.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 72.

73.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 73.

74.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 74.

75.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 75.

76.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 76.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant
Board of Trustees respectfully requests that Plaintiff take nothing in this suit and that Defendant
Board of Trustees be discharged thereon and recover its costs of court and expenses, and for such
other and further relief to which Defendant may show itself justly entitled.

6

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND ADDITIONAL MATTERS
Defendant states the following for her affirmative defenses and additional matters:
1.

Defendant incorporates her responses to Paragraphs 1 through 76 as though fully

set forth herein.
2.

Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint,

except those specifically admitted herein.
3.

Defendant restates and incorporates by this reference the denials, averments and

defenses set forth in the Answer of the Defendant Wofford as though fully set forth herein.
4.

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim against Defendant Board of Trustees on

which relief may be granted.
5.

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim against Defendant Wofford on which

relief may be granted.
6.

Defendant states and avers that any alleged blocking of the websites described in

Plaintiff’s Complaint was inadvertent, and not a result of an intentional act by Defendant
Wofford, nor the policies, practices, customs and usages of Defendant Board of Trustees.
7.

Defendant states and avers that no policy, practice, custom, or usage was a

“moving force” behind Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.
8.

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the

doctrine of qualified immunity, because Defendant Wofford acted, at all times relevant,
reasonably and in a good faith attempt to comply with clearly established law.
9.

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the

doctrine of qualified immunity, because Defendant Wofford acted, at all times relevant,

7

reasonably and in a good faith attempt to comply with professional standards for public
librarians.
10.

Defendant states and avers that Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is moot.

11.

Defendant states and avers that Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue the relief sought

in the Complaint.
12.

Defendant reserves the right to assert and plead additional affirmative defenses

when facts supporting such defenses become known and available during the course of this
litigation.
13.

Defendant hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant Board
of Trustees respectfully requests that Plaintiff take nothing in this suit and that Defendant Board
of Trustees be discharged thereon and recover its costs of court and expenses, and for such other
and further relief to which Defendant may show itself justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
BAIRD, LIGHTNER, MILLSAP & HARPOOL, P.C.
By:
/s/Matthew D. Wilson
M. DOUGLAS HARPOOL #28702
MATTHEW D. WILSON #59966
1901-C South Ventura Avenue
Springfield, MO 65804-2700
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants

8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 5th day of March, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing
with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which provided a copy of same to the below
listed counsel of record:
Anthony E. Rothert
Grant R. Doty
ACLU of Eastern Missouri
454 Whittier Street
St. Louis, MO 63108

Daniel Mach
ACLU Foundation
915 15th Street, NWS
Washington, DC 20005
Fax: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

/s/ Matthew D. Wilson
MATTHEW D. WILSON

9