IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Case No.

: 1:13-cv-00227-MR-DLH

R.L., AS LAWFUL GUARDIAN AD LITEM OF MINOR CHILD, A.L.,

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) BURKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS ) BOARD OF EDUCATION, KATHY ) AMOS, DAVID BURLESON, JOHN ROES ) 1-10 and MICHAEL ANDREW ) ALEXANDER ) ) Defendants ) )

ANSWER OF BURKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION, KATHY AMOS AND DAVID BURLESON

Now come defendants, Burke County Public Schools Board of Education (hereinafter Board), Kathy Amos (hereinafter Amos), and David Burleson (hereinafter Burleson ) and Answer plaintiffs Complaint as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. It is admitted upon information and belief that law enforcement officers discovered a child pornography ring. It is further admitted that defendant Alexander has been arrested, charged and sentenced for various crimes under North Carolina law. Except as admitted, these answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 1 and they are thus denied. It is admitted that defendant Alexander was a teacher with the Board's school system for approximately 12 years. It is further admitted that defendant Alexander has admitted giving M.G. a concoction containing his semen. Except as admitted, these answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 2 and they are thus denied. It is admitted that Defendant Alexander has admitted to giving a portion of a necklace to the minor plaintiff. It is further admitted that Defendant Alexander has admitted to maintaining a portion of the necklace. Upon information and belief the minor plaintiff maintained her portion of the necklace. It is also admitted upon information and belief that Defendant Alexander photographed the minor plaintiff.

2.

3.

Case 1:13-cv-00227-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 09/13/13 Page 1 of 14

2 These answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph number three and they are thus denied. 4. 5. 6. Denied. Denied. Liability for the violations outlined in paragraph number six are denied as to these answering defendants. Paragraph 7 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. 9. 10. 11. Paragraph 8 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. Paragraph 9 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. Paragraph 10 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. Paragraph 11 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. PARTIES 12. 13. Admitted upon information and belief. It is admitted that the Board operates Glen Alpine and Hildebran elementary schools as part of the Burke County Public Schools, pursuant to its statutory authority. The North Carolina General Statutes are a matter of public record and are the best evidence of their contents. Except as admitted the remaining allegations of paragraph number 12 are denied. Is admitted that the board properly executes its statutory authority and duties in administering the Burke County Schools. Except as admitted the remaining allegations of paragraph 14 are denied. Admitted. It is denied that defendant Burleson is a citizen and resident of Burke County. The remaining allegations of paragraph 16 constitute a legal conclusion and are thus denied. It is admitted that Defendant Burleson was employed as the superintendent at some point in the past. Except as admitted the remaining allegations of paragraph 17 are

7.

14.

15. 16.

17.

Case 1:13-cv-00227-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 09/13/13 Page 2 of 14

3 denied. 18. Is admitted that Defendant Amos is a resident of Burke County. The remaining allegations of paragraph 18 constitute a legal conclusion and are thus denied. It is admitted that at some point in the past Defendant Amos was the principal of Glen Alpine elementary school. It is further admitted that Defendant Amos is currently the principal of Patton High School. The remaining allegations of paragraph 19 are denied. The allegations of paragraph 20 are denied. It is specifically denied that any John Roes as described in paragraph 20 exist or have ever existed. Admitted upon information and belief. It is admitted that from approximately August 2000 through June 2012 Defendant Alexander was employed as an elementary school teacher at Glen Alpine and Hildebran elementary schools. Except as admitted the remaining allegations of paragraph 22 are denied. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 23. 24. Admitted upon information and belief. Is admitted that Defendant Alexander has admitted to photographing the minor plaintiff. Is further admitted that Defendant Alexander provided the minor plaintiff with a concoction containing his semen. It is specifically denied that defendant Alexander was acting under the color of law. These answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 24 and they are thus denied including all its subparts. Denied. Denied. It is admitted upon information and belief that Defendant Alexander has admitted to committing a single act of hands on sexual abuse of a minor on the premises of Glen Alpine elementary school. It is further admitted upon information and belief that Defendant Alexander has admitted to providing up to five minors with a concoction containing his semen. It is further admitted upon information and belief that Defendant Alexander has admitted photographing and videoing students. Except as admitted the remaining allegations of paragraph 27 are denied. These answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of paragraph 28 and they are thus denied.

19.

20.

21. 22.

25. 26. 27.

28.

Case 1:13-cv-00227-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 09/13/13 Page 3 of 14

4 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. It is admitted that Defendants Amos and Burleson fully fulfilled all duties required of them under the law. The remaining allegations of paragraph 34 are denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. It is admitted that Defendant Board had a Policy Manual in effect for all periods relevant for purposes of this lawsuit. Said Policy Manual or Manuals speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as admitted the remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied. It is admitted that Defendant Board had a Policy Manual in effect for all periods relevant for purposes of this lawsuit. Said Policy Manual or Manuals speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as admitted the remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied. It is admitted that Defendant Board had a Policy Manual in effect for all periods relevant for purposes of this lawsuit. Said Policy Manual or Manuals speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as admitted the remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied. It is admitted that Defendant Board had a Policy Manual in effect for all periods relevant for purposes of this lawsuit. Said Policy Manual or Manuals speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as admitted the remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied. It is admitted that Defendant Board had a Policy Manual in effect for all periods relevant for purposes of this lawsuit. Said Policy Manual or Manuals speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as admitted the remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied.

35. 36. 37. 38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

Case 1:13-cv-00227-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 09/13/13 Page 4 of 14

5 43. It is admitted that Defendant Board had a Policy Manual in effect for all periods relevant for purposes of this lawsuit. Said Policy Manual or Manuals speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as admitted the remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied. It is admitted that defendant Board had a Communications Plan which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as admitted the remaining allegations of paragraph 44 are denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. It is further denied that any John Roes, as described, exist or ever existed. It is admitted that on or about the date alleged Defendant Alexander was arrested and removed from his teaching post. Except as admitted the remaining allegations of paragraph 49 are denied. Denied. It is admitted that Defendant Alexander was charged with multiple criminal offenses. Except as admitted the remaining allegations of paragraph 51 are denied. Denied. It is admitted that Defendant Alexander pled guilty to certain limited crimes not involving this minor plaintiff and is currently incarcerated with the North Carolina Department of Corrections. Except as admitted the remaining allegations of paragraph 53 are denied. This paragraph constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. These answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of paragraph 55 and they are thus denied. Denied. COUNT I 57. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 56 as if fully set forth herein in.

44.

45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

50. 51.

52. 53.

54. 55.

56.

Case 1:13-cv-00227-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 09/13/13 Page 5 of 14

6 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Paragraph 63 and all its subparts are denied. Paragraph 64 and all of its subparts are denied as to these answering defendants. COUNT II 65. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 64 as if fully set forth herein. Paragraph 66 and all of its subparts are denied. Denied. Denied. Paragraph 69 and all of its subparts are denied as to these answering defendants. COUNT III 70. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 69 as if fully set forth herein. It is admitted that defendants Alexander, Amos and Burleson were all employees of the Board. Except as admitted the remaining allegations of paragraph 71 are denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied.

66. 67. 68. 69.

71.

72. 73. 74. 75. 76.

Case 1:13-cv-00227-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 09/13/13 Page 6 of 14

7 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Paragraph 81 and all of its subparts are denied as to these answering defendants. COUNT IV 82. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 81 as if fully set forth herein. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Paragraph 87 and all of its subparts are denied as to these answering defendants. COUNT V 88. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 87 as if fully set forth herein. Paragraph 89 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. Paragraph 90 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. Paragraph 91 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Paragraph 95 and all of its subparts are denied as to these answering defendants.

83. 84. 85. 86. 87.

89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95.

Case 1:13-cv-00227-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 09/13/13 Page 7 of 14

8 COUNT VI 96. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 95 as if fully set forth herein. Denied. Denied. Denied. Paragraph 100 and all of its subparts are denied as to these answering defendants. COUNT VII 101. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 100 as if fully set forth herein. It is admitted that defendants Alexander, Amos and Burleson were employees of the Board. Except as admitted the remaining allegations of paragraph 102 are denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Paragraph 111 and all of its subparts are denied as to these answering defendants. COUNT VIII 112. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 111 as if fully set forth herein.

97. 98. 99. 100.

102.

103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111.

Case 1:13-cv-00227-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 09/13/13 Page 8 of 14

9 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Paragraph 118 and all of its subparts are denied as to these answering defendants. COUNT IX 119. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 118 as if fully set forth herein. Paragraph 120 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. Paragraph 121 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. Paragraph 122 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Paragraph 127 and all of its subparts are denied as to these answering defendants. COUNT X 128. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 127 as if fully set forth herein. Denied. Denied as to these answering defendants. Denied as to these answering defendants. Denied as to these answering defendants.

120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127.

129. 130. 131. 132.

Case 1:13-cv-00227-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 09/13/13 Page 9 of 14

10 133. Paragraph 133 and all of its subparts are denied as to these answering defendants. COUNT XI 134. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 133 as if fully set forth herein. It is admitted that defendant Amos and Burleson were employees of the Board. Except as admitted the remaining allegations of paragraph 135 constitute a legal conclusion and are thus denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Paragraph 139 and all of its subparts are denied as to these answering defendants. COUNT XII 140. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 139 as if fully set forth herein. This paragraph constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. Denied. Denied. Denied as to these answering defendants. Paragraph 145 and all of its subparts are denied as to these answering defendants. COUNT XIII 146. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 145 as if fully set forth herein. It is admitted that defendants Amos and Burleson were employees of Board. Except as admitted the remaining allegations paragraph 147 are denied. Denied.

135.

136. 137. 138. 139.

141. 142. 143. 144. 145.

147.

148.

Case 1:13-cv-00227-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 09/13/13 Page 10 of 14

11 149. 150. 151. 152. Paragraph 149 constitutes a legal conclusion and is thus denied. Denied. Denied. Paragraph 152 and all of its subparts are denied as to these answering defendants. COUNT XIV 153. These answering defendants incorporate by reference their answers to paragraphs 1 through 152 as if fully set forth herein. These answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of this paragraph and they are thus denied. These answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of this paragraph and they are thus denied. These answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of this paragraph and they are thus denied. These answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of this paragraph and they are thus denied. These answering defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of this paragraph and they are thus denied. Paragraph 159 and all its subparts are denied as to these answering defendants. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY To the extent there is no waiver of immunity, these answering defendants are entitled to sovereign and/or governmental immunity for each and every claim asserted against each of them in the Complaint. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) plaintiffs fail to state a claim against theses answering defendants and this action against them should be dismissed.

154.

155.

156.

157.

158.

159.

Case 1:13-cv-00227-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 09/13/13 Page 11 of 14

12 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY All actions by the individual defendants Amos and Burleson were objectively reasonable under the circumstances then and there existing, and they are entitled to qualified immunity. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE PUBLIC OFFICER IMMUNITY Defendants Amos and Burleson are entitled to Public Officer Immunity. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE PUNITIVE DAMAGES Punitive damages against local, governmental bodies, their officials and their employees are barred by governmental immunity and otherwise. Further, an award of punitive damages against theses answering defendants is unjustified and unconstitutional. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE PUBLIC DUTY DOCTRINE Plaintiffs claims against these answering defendants are barred by the Public Duty Doctrine. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE STATUTORY IMMUNITY These Defendants assert immunity as outlined and provided in any Federal or State Statute, including but not limited to the immunity granted in NC Code Anno. 115C-44.

Case 1:13-cv-00227-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 09/13/13 Page 12 of 14

13 WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Complaint of the Plaintiffs, these Defendants pray that the Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed or, in the alternative, for a trial by jury, together with the costs and disbursements of this action and for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. This the 13th day of September, 2013. CLAWSON AND STAUBES, LLC s/ Andrew J. Santaniello Andrew J. Santaniello NC BAR No.: 23532 756 Tyvola Rd., Suite 130 Charlotte, NC 28217 704-940-9128 asantaniello@clawsonandstaubes.com Attorney for Defendants Burke County Schools Board of Education, Amos and Burleson CAMPBELL SHATLEY, PLLC s/ K. Dean Shatley, II K. Dean Shatley, II NC BAR No.: 31782 674 Merrimon Ave., Suite 210 Asheville, NC 28804 828-398-2775 Dean@csedlaw.com Attorney for Defendants Burke County Schools Board of Education, Amos and Burleson

Case 1:13-cv-00227-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 09/13/13 Page 13 of 14

14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that in conformity with Rule 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure that a true copy of the foregoing pleading has been served upon all parties entitled or required to be served by mailing a copy of the document in a properly addressed envelope with sufficient postage affixed thereto. Alternatively, and further, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 and Local Civil Rule 5.3 this document has been filed by electronic means in compliance with the rules and service has been effected by electronic means through the Courts transmission facilities as authorized by Rule 5.3 and in conformity of these rules this 13th day of September, 2013. Mr. Michael A. Alexander Offender ID: 1328076 NC Central Prison 1300 Western Blvd. Raleigh, NC 27606 Via ECF: Douglas E. Fierberg dfierberg@bode.com Peter C. Grenier pgrenier@bode.com James W. Saffell jsaffell@bode.com Robert M. Tatum rtatum@tatumatkinson.com Jennifer Eaker Fulkerson jeakerunc@aol.com

CLAWSON AND STAUBES, LLC s/ Andrew J. Santaniello Andrew J. Santaniello NC BAR No.: 23532 756 Tyvola Rd., Suite 130 Charlotte, NC 28217 704-940-9128 asantaniello@clawsonandstaubes.com Attorney for Defendants Burke County Schools Board of Education, Amos and Burleson

Case 1:13-cv-00227-MR-DLH Document 10 Filed 09/13/13 Page 14 of 14