LYTTLE v. The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al

Filing 67

ANSWER to 44 Amended Complaint, by Mary Hines. (Finarelli, Joseph)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EASTERN DIVISION
No. 4:10-CV-142-D
MARK DANIEL LYTTLE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et
al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT
MARY HINES

Defendants.
NOW COMES Defendant Mary Hines (hereinafter, “Defendant Hines”), by and through
counsel, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper and Assistant Attorney General Joseph
Finarelli, answering the Amended Complaint and avers:
INTRODUCTION
1.

It is admitted that Plaintiff has purported to bring an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1983 for injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages arising out of his detention and
subsequent deportation by officials and employees of Immigration and Custom Enforcement
(hereinafter, “ICE”). It is further admitted, upon information and belief, that Plaintiff suffers from
mental illness. It is further admitted that on 25 August 2008, during an intake interview upon his
incarceration in the NCDOC, Plaintiff informed Defendant Marilyn Stephenson (hereinafter,
“Defendant Stephenson”) that he had been born in Mexico. It is further admitted, upon information
and belief, that Defendant Stephenson identified Plaintiff as someone to be referred to ICE for
investigation into the suitability of deportation. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint are denied for lack of information and belief. It is

specifically denied that Defendant Hines had ample evidence that Plaintiff was a U.S. citizen.
2.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
3.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint state legal

conclusions, are directed at parties other than Defendant Hines, and are allegations to which no
response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Hines lacks sufficient
knowledge and information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the
Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
4.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint state legal

conclusions, are directed at parties other than Defendant Hines, and are allegations to which no
response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Hines lacks sufficient
knowledge and information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the
Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5.

Admitted.

6.

Admitted, upon information and belief.
PARTIES

7.

It is admitted, upon information and belief, that Plaintiff suffers from mental illness.

Except as herein admitted, Defendant HInes lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit
or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint and the same are
therefore denied.
8.

Admitted, upon information and belief.
-2-

9.

Admitted, upon information and belief.

10.

Admitted, upon information and belief.

11.

Admitted, upon information and belief.

12.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
13.

Admitted.

14.

Admitted, upon information and belief.

15.

Admitted.

16.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
17.

Admitted.

18.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of the Amended Complaint state legal

conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations
are denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Hines acted in bad faith and contrary to
established law and principles of constitutional and statutory law.
19.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the Amended Complaint state legal

conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations
are denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Hines caused or is liable for any unconstitutional
and unlawful conduct directed towards Plaintiff or any resulting injuries suffered by him.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Mark Lyttle’s Background
20.

It is admitted that Exhibit A to the Complaint appears to be a State of North Carolina
-3-

Certificate of Live Birth which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. It is further
admitted that Exhibit B to the Complaint appears to be a document entitled Final Judgment of
Adoption which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as herein admitted,
Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
21.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
22.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
23.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
24.

It is admitted, upon information and belief, that Plaintiff has been diagnosed with bi-

polar disorder. Except as herein admitted, Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and
information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of the Amended
Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
25.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
26.

Admitted, upon information and belief.
Mark Lyttle’s Arrest and Detention in North Carolina

27.

It is admitted, upon information and belief, that, while a patient at Cherry Hospital,

Plaintiff was charged with a misdemeanor offense of Assault on a Female, a violation of N.C.G.S.
§ 14-33(c)(2), for inappropriately touching a female staff member. It is further admitted that Plaintiff
-4-

was arrested for that offense, was convicted, and was sentenced to serve 100 days in the custody of
NCDOC. It is further admitted that Plaintiff was initially interviewed, processed, admitted, and
housed at Neuse CI. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph
27 of the Amended Complaint are denied.
28.

It is admitted that, on 22 August 2008, Plaintiff was admitted to Neuse CI to begin

serving his sentence. Except as herein admitted, Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and
information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of the Amended
Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
29.

It is admitted, upon information and belief, that, pursuant to an arrangement between

NCDOC and ICE, at least once a week, ICE agents visited certain NCDOC facilities, including
Neuse CI, to interview inmates that employees of NCDOC had reason to believe were foreign born
and, therefore, not United States citizens. It is further admitted that these inmates were subsequently
referred to ICE for investigation into the suitability of deportation. It is further admitted, upon
information and belief, that Boyd Bennett, previously the Director of the Division of Prisons, a
division of NCDOC, circulated a memorandum dated 6 June 2007 discussing this arrangement, a
document that speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as herein admitted,
the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of the Amended Complaint are denied.
30.

Admitted, upon information and belief.

31.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 31 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
32.

It is admitted, upon information and belief, that, during the admission process at

Neuse CI, Defendant Stephenson asked Plaintiff a series of biographical questions including where
-5-

he was born. It is further admitted, upon information and belief, that, when asked where he was
born, Plaintiff responded that he had been born in Mexico. Except as herein admitted, the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 32 of the Amended Complaint are denied.
33.

It is admitted, upon information and belief, that Defendant Stephenson listed

Plaintiff’s country of birth as “Mexico” and his ethnicity as “Hispanic/Latino” and that such
information was based on Plaintiff’s responses to biographical questions during his intake interview
at Neuse CI.

Except as herein admitted, Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and

information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 33 of the Amended
Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
34.

It is admitted, upon information and belief, that ICE Agents interviewed Plaintiff at

Neuse CI on 2 September 2008. It is further admitted that Defendant Hines interviewed Plaintiff on
16 September 2008. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph
34 of the Amended Complaint are denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Hines ever treated
Plaintiff.
35.

It is admitted that Defendant Hines is a Diagnostic Case Analyst for NCDOC at

Neuse CI. It is further admitted that, on 16 September 2008, Defendant Hines interviewed Plaintiff
and input information into OPUS. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained
in Paragraph 35 of the Amended Complaint are denied.
36.

It is admitted, upon information and belief, that Defendant Stephenson referred

Plaintiff to ICE for investigation into his suitability for possible deportation and that an investigation
into Plaintiff’s citizenship was subsequently initiated by ICE.

It is further admitted, upon

information and belief, that Plaintiff was included on the list because he had reported to Defendant
-6-

Stephenson that he had been born in Mexico. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 36 of the Amended Complaint are denied.
37.

Denied.

ICE Agents Interrogated Mr. Lyttle and Coerced Him Into Signing Documents
That Waived Important Legal Rights
38.

It is admitted, upon information and belief, that, on 25 August 2008, Plaintiff was

given and executed a document entitled “Non-Mandatory Consular Notification,” which is the best
evidence of its contents and speaks for itself. Except as herein admitted, the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 38 of the Amended Complaint are denied.
39.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 39 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
40.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 40 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
41.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 41 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
42.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 42 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
43.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 43 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
44.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 44 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
45.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the
-7-

allegations contained in Paragraph 45 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
46.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 46 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
47.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 47 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
48.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 48 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
49.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 49 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
50.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 50 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
51.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 51 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
52.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 52 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
53.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 53 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
54.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 54 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
55.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 55 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
56.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the
-8-

allegations contained in Paragraph 56 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
57.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 57of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
58.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 58 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
59.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 59 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
60.

It is admitted that, during her interview of Plaintiff on 16 September 2008, Defendant

Hines reviewed with Plaintiff the information entered by Defendant Stephenson into OPUS for
accuracy. It is further admitted that, during this interview, Plaintiff reported to Defendant Hines that
his father was from Mexico and that Plaintiff himself had been born in Mexico and was adopted.
Except as herein admitted, Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or
deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 60 of the Amended Complaint and the same
are therefore denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Hines had any legal obligation to verify
Plaintiff’s citizenship.
61.

It is admitted that Defendant Hines made no attempt to contact Plaintiff’s family or

to obtain Plaintiff’s birth certificate from North Carolina Vital Records. It is further admitted that
Defendant Hines made no attempt to refer Plaintiff to a legal representative familiar with deportation
proceedings to protect Plaintiff’s rights. Except as herein admitted, Defendant Hines lacks
sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 61 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied. It is specifically denied
that Defendant Hines had any legal obligation, responsibility, authority, or need to contact Plaintiff’s
-9-

family, obtain Plaintiff’s birth certificate from North Carolina Vital Records, or refer Plaintiff to a
legal representative.
Mr. Lyttle’s Transfer to Stewart Detention Center to Await Removal
62.

Admitted, upon information and belief.

63.

It is admitted, upon information and belief, that, upon his admission into NCDOC,

Plaintiff had a projected release date of 26 October 2008. It is further admitted, upon information
and belief, that, on 28 October 2008, Plaintiff was released into the custody of ICE officials pursuant
to the documentation provided to NCDOC by the ICE Defendants in early September 2008. Except
as herein admitted, Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny
the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 63 of the Amended Complaint and the same are
therefore denied.
64.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 64 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
65.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 65 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
66.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 66 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
67.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 67 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
68.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 68 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
69.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the
- 10 -

allegations contained in Paragraph 69 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
The Hayes Memo
70

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 70 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
71.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 71 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
72.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 72 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
73.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 73 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
74.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 74 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
75.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 75 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
76.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 76 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
ICE Agents Disregarded Mr. Lyttle’s Claim of U.S. Citizenship And Violated The Clear
Directives Of The Hayes Memo By Coercing and Manipulating Mr. Lyttle Into Signing
Additional Conflicting Statements
77.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 77 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
78.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 78 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
- 11 -

79.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 79 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
80.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 80 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
81.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 81 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
The Removal of Mr. Lyttle From The United States
82.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 82 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
83.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 83 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
84.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 84 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
85.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 85 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
86.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 86 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
87.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 87 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
88.

Denied.

89.

Denied.

90.

Denied.
- 12 -

91.

Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Hines deliberately discriminated

against Plaintiff on the basis of his perceived race and/or ethnicity in violation of his constitutional
rights.
92.

It is admitted that Defendant Hines has received no training from ICE personnel.

Except as herein admitted, Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or
deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 92 of the Amended Complaint and the same are
therefore denied.
93.

It is specifically denied that Defendant Hines exhibited indifference to the rights and

well-being of Plaintiff.

It is further specifically denied that Defendant Hines intentionally

discriminated against Defendant on the basis of his race. Except as herein specifically denied,
Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the allegations
contained in Paragraph 93 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied. .
94.

It is admitted that Defendant Hines asked Plaintiff where he was born and that

Plaintiff responded that he had been born in Mexico. It is further admitted, upon information and
belief, that Plaintiff, when asked, also informed Defendant Stephenson that he had been born in
Mexico. It is further admitted that Plaintiff reported to Defendant Stephenson a purported Social
Security number, which could not be verified. It is further admitted that Defendant Hines made no
additional effort to confirm Plaintiff’s citizenship status. Except as herein admitted, the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 94 of the Amended Complaint are denied. It is specifically
denied that Defendant Hines had the legal obligation, responsibility, or need to confirm the veracity
of Plaintiff’s claims of any particular citizenship, as such a task is, upon information and belief,
bestowed on the Department of Homeland Security and ICE prior to an individual’s deportation from
- 13 -

the United States. It is further specifically denied that Defendant Hines intentionally discriminated
against or was deliberately indifferent towards Plaintiff (or any other inmate) on the basis of a
Latino, Hispanic, or other race/ethnicity.
95.

It is denied that Plaintiff was deported as a direct and foreseeable consequence of any

practice or procedure utilized by Defendant Hines. Except as herein denied, Defendant Hines lacks
sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 95 of
the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
Mr. Lyttle In Central America
96.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 96 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
97.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 97 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
98.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 98 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
99.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 99 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore denied.
100.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 100 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
101.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 101 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
- 14 -

102.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 102 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
103.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 103 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
104.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 104 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
105.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 105 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
106.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 106 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
107.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 107 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
108.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 108 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
109.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the
- 15 -

allegations contained in Paragraph 109 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
110.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 110 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
111.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 111 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
Mr. Lyttle’s Return Home To The United States
112.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 112 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
113.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 113 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
114.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 114 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
115.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 115 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
116.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the
- 16 -

allegations contained in Paragraph 116 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
117.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 117 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
118.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 118 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
119.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 119 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
120.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 120 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
121.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 121 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
122.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 122 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
123.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 110 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
- 17 -

denied.
124.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 124 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
125.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 125 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution / Due Process)
(Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents Of Federal Bureau of Narcotics)
(Against Defendants Robert Kendall, Dashanta Faucette, and Dean Caputo and ICE Doe
Defendants 1-10)
126.

Defendant Hines incorporates and realleges her responses to the allegations contained

in Paragraphs 1 through 125 of the Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
127.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 127 of the Amended Complaint are not

directed at Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, the allegations contained in Paragraph 127 of the Amended Complaint
are denied.
128.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 128 of the Amended Complaint are not

directed at Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, the allegations contained in Paragraph 128 of the Amended Complaint
are denied.

- 18 -

129.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 129 of the Amended Complaint are not

directed at Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, the allegations contained in Paragraph 129 of the Amended Complaint
are denied.
130.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 130 of the Amended Complaint are not

directed at Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, the allegations contained in Paragraph 130 of the Amended Complaint
are denied.
131.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 131 of the Amended Complaint are not

directed at Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, the allegations contained in Paragraph 131 of the Amended Complaint
are denied.
132.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 132 of the Amended Complaint are not

directed at Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, the allegations contained in Paragraph 132 of the Amended Complaint
are denied.
133.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 133 of the Amended Complaint are not

directed at Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, the allegations contained in Paragraph 133 of the Amended Complaint
are denied.

- 19 -

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution / Equal Protection)
(Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents Of Federal Bureau of Narcotics)
(Against Defendants Robert Kendall, Dashanta Faucette, and Dean Caputo and ICE Doe
Defendants 1-10)
134.

Defendant Hines incorporates and realleges her responses to the allegations contained

in Paragraph 1 through 125 of the Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
135.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 135 of the Amended Complaint are not

directed at Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, the allegations contained in Paragraph 135 of the Amended Complaint
are denied.
136.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 136 of the Amended Complaint are not

directed at Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, the allegations contained in Paragraph 136 of the Amended Complaint
are denied.
137.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 137 of the Amended Complaint are not

directed at Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, the allegations contained in Paragraph 137 of the Amended Complaint
are denied.
138.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 138 of the Amended Complaint are not

directed at Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, the allegations contained in Paragraph 138 of the Amended Complaint
are denied.

- 20 -

139.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 139 of the Amended Complaint are not

directed at Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, the allegations contained in Paragraph 139 of the Amended Complaint
are denied.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)
(Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents Of Federal Bureau of Narcotics)
(Against Defendants Robert Kendall, Dashanta Faucette, and Dean Caputo and ICE Doe
Defendants 1-10)
140.

Defendant Hines incorporates and realleges her responses to the allegations contained

in Paragraphs 1 through 125 of the Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
141.

It is admitted, upon information and belief, that Plaintiff completed serving his

sentence for assault on a female on or about 26 October 2008. Except as herein admitted, the
remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 141 of the Amended Complaint are not directed at
Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a
response is required, the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 141 of the Amended
Complaint are denied.
142.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 142 of the Amended Complaint are not

directed at Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, the allegations contained in Paragraph 142 of the Amended Complaint
are denied.
143.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 143 of the Amended Complaint are not

directed at Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the

- 21 -

extent a response is required, the allegations contained in Paragraph 143 of the Amended Complaint
are denied.
144.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 144 of the Amended Complaint are not

directed at Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, the allegations contained in Paragraph 144 of the Amended Complaint
are denied.
145.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 145 of the Amended Complaint are not

directed at Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, the allegations contained in Paragraph 145 of the Amended Complaint
are denied.
146.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 146 of the Amended Complaint are not

directed at Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, the allegations contained in Paragraph 146 of the Amended Complaint
are denied.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(False Imprisonment)
(Federal Tort Claims Act)
(Against Defendant United States of America)
147.

Defendant Hines incorporates and realleges her responses to the allegations contained

in Paragraphs 1 through 125 of the Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
148.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 148 of the Complaint are not directed at

Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a
response is required, the allegations contained in Paragraph 148 of the Amended Complaint are
- 22 -

denied.
149.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 149 of the Amended Complaint are not

directed at Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, the allegations contained in Paragraph 149 of the Amended Complaint
are denied.
150.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 150 of the Amended Complaint are not

directed at Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, the allegations contained in Paragraph 150 of the Amended Complaint
are denied.
151.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 151 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
152.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 152 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(False Imprisonment)
(Federal Tort Claims Act)
(Against Defendant United States of America)
153.

Defendant Hines incorporates and realleges her responses to the allegations in

Paragraphs 1 through 125 of the Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
154.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 154 of the Amended Complaint are not

directed at Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
- 23 -

extent a response is required, the allegations contained in Paragraph 154 of the Amended Complaint
are denied.
155.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 155 of the Amended Complaint are not

directed at Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, the allegations contained in Paragraph 155 of the Amended Complaint
are denied.
156.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 156 of the Amended Complaint are not

directed at Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, the allegations contained in Paragraph 156 of the Amended Complaint
are denied.
157.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 157 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
158.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 158 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
(Federal Torts Claim Act)
(Against Defendant United States of America)
159.

Defendant Hines incorporates and realleges her responses to the allegations contained

in Paragraphs 1 through 125 of the Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
160.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 160 of the Amended Complaint are not
- 24 -

directed at Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, the allegations contained in Paragraph 160 of the Amended Complaint
are denied.
161.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 161 of the Amended Complaint are not

directed at Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, the allegations contained in Paragraph 161 of the Amended Complaint
are denied.
162.

The allegations contained in Paragraph 162 of the Amended Complaint are not

directed at Defendant Hines and state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, the allegations contained in Paragraph 162 of the Amended Complaint
are denied.
163.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 163 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
164.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 164 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.
165.

Defendant Hines lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in Paragraph 165 of the Amended Complaint and the same are therefore
denied.

- 25 -

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution)
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
(Against North Carolina Defendants)
166.

Defendant Hines incorporates and realleges its responses to the allegations contained

in Paragraphs 1 through 125 of the Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
167.

Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Hines caused or participated in

Plaintiff’s deportation to Mexico.
168.

It is admitted that Defendant Hines acted under color of law and acted in the

performance of her official duties under federal and state laws and regulations. Except as herein
admitted, the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 168 of the Amended Complaint are
denied.
169.

Denied.

170.

Denied.

171.

Denied.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution)
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
(Against North Carolina Defendants)

172.

Defendant Hines incorporates and realleges her responses to the allegations contained

in Paragraphs 1 through 125 of the Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
173.

Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Hines discriminated against Plaintiff

on the basis of his race and ethnicity.
174.

It is admitted that Defendant Hines acted under color of law and acted or purported
- 26 -

to act in the performance of her official duties under federal and state laws and regulations. Except
as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 174 of the Amended Complaint
are denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Hines acted with the intent or purpose to
discriminate against Plaintiff.
175.

Denied.

176.

Denied.

177.

Denied.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution)
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
(Against North Carolina Defendants)

178.

Defendant Hines incorporates and realleges her responses to the allegations contained

in Paragraphs 1 through 125 of the Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
179.

Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Hines violated Plaintiff’s right to be

free from unreasonable seizure by a government official by causing or participating in the
deportation of Plaintiff.
180.

It is admitted that Defendant Hines acted under color of law and acted or purported

to act in the performance of her official duties under federal and state laws and regulations. Except
as herein admitted, the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 180 of the Amended Complaint
are denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Hines acted with the intent or purpose to
discriminate against Plaintiff.
181.

Denied.

182.

Denied.
- 27 -

183.

Denied.
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(False Arrest and Imprisonment)
(Against North Carolina Defendants)

184.

Defendant Hines incorporates and realleges her responses to the allegations contained

in Paragraphs 1 through 125 of the Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
185.

Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Stephenson deprived Plaintiff of his

liberty by placing him in an Immigration Hold or by physically delivering Plaintiff into the custody
of ICE at the expiration of Plaintiff’s North Carolina sentence.
186.

Denied.

FURTHER ANSWERING THE COMPLAINT AND AS FURTHER DEFENSES
THERETO, DEFENDANT HINES AVERS:
FIRST FURTHER DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s Seventh Claim for Relief against Defendant Hines for violations of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted and, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Defendant Hines pleads this failure in bar of Plaintiff’s claims against her for violations
of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
SECOND FURTHER DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s Eighth Claim for Relief against Defendant Hines for violations of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted and, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Defendant Hines pleads this failure in bar of Plaintiff’s claims against her for violations of the
- 28 -

Fourteenth Amendment.
THIRD FURTHER DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s Ninth Claim for Relief against Defendant Hines for violations of the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted and, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Defendant Stephenson pleads this failure in bar of Plaintiff’s claims against her for violations of the
Fourth Amendment.
FOURTH FURTHER DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s Tenth Claim for Relief against Defendant Hines for false imprisonment and arrest
in violation of North Carolina law fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and,
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Stephenson pleads this
failure in bar of Plaintiff’s claims against her for false imprisonment and arrest.
FIFTH FURTHER DEFENSE
Qualified immunity shields Defendant Hines in her individual capacity from Plaintiff’s
claims against her for monetary damages as Defendant Hines did not violate any clearly established
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known
SIXTH FURTHER DEFENSE
The Complaint in its entirety, or, alternatively, in part, fails to satisfy the pleading standards
set forth in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Hines pleads this failure in bar of the Plaintiff’s claims
against her.

- 29 -

SEVENTH FURTHER DEFENSE
To the extent that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Hines are predicated under a theory
of an unconstitutional tort, the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries was the intervening and
superseding conduct of others, including Defendant United States of America, ICE Defendants
Faucette, Kendall, Caputo, and ICE Doe Defendants 1-10, and the actions of those defendants were
active and proximately caused the injuries to Plaintiff and Defendant Hines pleads the intervening
and superseding conduct of those defendants in bar of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Hines for
constitutional torts.
EIGHTH FURTHER DEFENSE
Plaintiff fails to allege or otherwise describe any facts to support a claim for punitive
damages against Defendant Hines who therefore respectfully requests that Plaintiff’s request for
punitive damages in the Prayer for Relief be denied.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Hines, having answered the Amended Complaint of the
Plaintiff, prays that:
1.

The Plaintiff have and recover nothing of her in this action;

2.

The costs of this action be taxed against the Plaintiff; and

3.

The Court grant to Defendant Hines such other and further relief as the Court may

deem just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendant Hines hereby demands a trial by jury on all of the issues raised by the
pleadings in this action.

- 30 -

Respectfully submitted, this the 14th day of October, 2011.
ROY COOPER
Attorney General

/s/ Joseph Finarelli
Joseph Finarelli
Assistant Attorney General
North Carolina State Bar Number: 26712
North Carolina Department of Justice
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
Attorney for Defendant Hines

- 31 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on 14 October 2011, I electronically filed the
foregoing Motion to Dismiss and Answer of Defendant Mary Hines with the Clerk of Court
using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following counsel of
record:
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF:
Jeremy L. McKinney
N.C. State Bar No.23318
[e-mail]
Ann Marie Brown Dooley
N.C. State Bar No. 33895
[e-mail]
McKinney & Justice, P.A.
P.O. Box 1800
Greensboro, North Carolina 27402
Michael E. Johnson
Georgia Bar No. 395039
[e-mail]
Brian P. Watt
Georgia Bar No. 741841
[e-mail]
Alexandria J. Reyes
Georgia Bar No. 428936
[e-mail]
Bank of America Plaza, Suite 5200
600 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308-2216
Katherine L. Parker
N.C. State Bar No. 36263
[e-mail]
American Civil Liberties Union of
North Carolina Legal Foundation
P.O. Box 28004
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

- 32 -

Judy Rabinovitz
[e-mail]
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
Immigrants’ Rights Project
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10004
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS CAPUTO, FAUCETTE, ICE DOES 1-10,
KENDALL AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
James R. Whitman
D.C. Bar No. 987694
[e-mail]
United States Department of Justice
Torts Branch, Civil Division
P.O. Box 7146
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-7146
W. Ellis Boyle,
N.C. Bar No. 33826
[e-mail]
Assistant United States Attorney
Civil Division
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 800
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1461
This the 14th day of October, 2011.
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Joseph Finarelli
Joseph Finarelli
Assistant Attorney General

- 33 -