CASE 0:17-cv-04725-JRT-KMM Document 3 Filed 10/18/17 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Michael Fleming, Court File No. 17-cv-4725

Judge John R. Tunheim
Plaintiff
MIKE DUNASKI AND CITY OF
vs. SAINT PAULS ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT
Mike Dunaski, in his official and individual
capacities, and Officer John Doe 1-5, in [JURY TRIAL DEMANDED]
their official and individual capacities and
the City of St. Paul,

Defendants.

NOW COME Defendants Mike Dunaski and the City of Saint Paul (Answering

Defendants) for their Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint. Answering Defendants state and

allege as follows:

1. Except as admitted or otherwise qualified below, Answering Defendants

deny each and every allegation contained in Plaintiffs Complaint.

2. As to paragraph 1, Answering Defendants allege that no responsive

pleading is required and to the extent a response is required, deny any allegations of

wrongdoing asserted against them in the paragraph.

3. As to paragraph 2, Answering Defendants allege that no responsive

pleading is required as to the first sentence, admit the remaining allegations and further

allege that this matter is also properly under the jurisdiction of the United Stated District

Court in the District of Minnesota.

 CASE 0:17-cv-04725-JRT-KMM Document 3 Filed 10/18/17 Page 2 of 4

4. As to paragraph 3, Answering Defendants admit based on information and

belief.

5. Answering Defendants admit paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Complaint.

6. As to paragraph 7, Answering Defendants admit the allegations as to them

and allege they are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations

against John Does 1-5.

7. Answering Defendants admit paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Complaint.

8. As to paragraph 10, Answering Defendants admit the allegations but for the

reference to the presence John Does 1-5 and allege that Answering Defendants are

without sufficient information as to whether John Does 1-5 were present.

9. Answering Defendants admit paragraph 11 of the Complaint.

10. Answering Defendants deny paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 of the

Complaint.

11. As to paragraph 17, Answering Defendants admit that Plaintiff was

bleeding, appeared injured and was handcuffed before being taken from the apartment

and deny any remaining allegations.

12. As to paragraph 18, Answering Defendants admit only that Plaintiff was

taken to Regions and allege that they are without sufficient information to form a belief

as to the remaining allegations and therefore, puts Plaintiff to his proof thereof.

13. As to paragraphs 19 and 20, Answering Defendants allege that they are

without sufficient information to form a belief as to the remaining allegations and

therefore, puts Plaintiff to his proof thereof.

2
 CASE 0:17-cv-04725-JRT-KMM Document 3 Filed 10/18/17 Page 3 of 4

14. Answering Defendants re-assert their answers to paragraphs 1- 20 of the

Complaint and deny paragraphs 21, 22, and 23 of the Complaint.

15. Answering Defendants re-assert their answers to paragraphs 1- 23 of the

Complaint and deny paragraphs 24, 25, and 26 of the Complaint.

16. Answering Defendants re-assert their answers to paragraphs 1- 26 of the

Complaint and deny paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 of the Complaint.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

17. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of qualified

immunity.

18. Plaintiffs alleged injuries and any damages sustained by him were

proximately caused by Plaintiffs own acts or misconduct.

19. All actions taken by Mike Dunaski and the City of St. Paul were authorized

by the laws of the United States and the State of Minnesota.

20. Any injuries or damages sustained by Plaintiff were caused solely by

reason of his willful and physical resistance to St. Paul Police Officers in the lawful

performance of their duties.

21. Plaintiffs claims are further barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of

official immunity, vicarious official immunity, statutory immunity, and all other

immunities afforded under Minn. Stat. Ch. 466.

22. Plaintiffs claims also may be barred by the affirmative defenses

contemplated by Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which are not

specifically set out above. The extent to which Plaintiffs claims may be barred by one or

3
 CASE 0:17-cv-04725-JRT-KMM Document 3 Filed 10/18/17 Page 4 of 4

more of said affirmative defenses cannot be determined until there has been further

discovery. Answering Defendants therefore allege and incorporate all such affirmative

defenses set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c).

WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants request that Plaintiff take nothing by his

pretended cause of action and that the Court dismisses Plaintiffs claims and awards

Answering Defendants their costs and disbursements incurred herein and such other and

further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Dated: October 12, 2017 SAMUEL J. CLARK

City Attorney

s/ Cheri M. Sisk
CHERI M. SISK, #032999X
Assistant City Attorney
750 City Hall and Courthouse
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55102
P: (651) 266-8768
F: (651)266-8787
cheri.sisk@ci.stpaul.mn.us

Attorneys for Mike Dunaski and

the City of Saint Paul