UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

SOUTHERN DIVISION, AT CHATTANOOGA

CHARLES FRANKLIN BURKHALTER, )

)
Plaintiff )
) NO. 1:22-CV-307
v. )
)
CITY OF EAST RIDGE, TENNESSEE, JOSH CREEL, )
HAMILTON COUNTY GOVERNMENT, et al., )
)
Defendants )

ANSWER OF HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE

Defendant Hamilton County (“County”) shows the following as its Answer to the

Amended Complaint:

1. The unnumbered preamble to the Amended Complaint requires no response as it

was not made by or on behalf of the County, but the quotation therein supposedly made by

Hamilton County District Attorney Coty Wamp (“DA Wamp”) is neither relevant nor material to

the claims asserted against the County and should be stricken. This quote appears to be included

to inflame the passions and prejudices of a potential jury, and counsel for the Plaintiff should be

required to provide legal support from which he derived any good faith conclusion that their

inclusion was appropriate.

2. In response to Paragraph 1, it is admitted that on or about November 14, 2022, State

of Tennessee ex rel. Coty Wamp made a request for a temporary restraining order by filing a

Verified Petition for Abatement of Nuisance (the “Petition). A temporary injunction/restraining

order was entered by Hamilton County Criminal Court Judge Boyd Patterson at the request of DA

Wamp. The remaining allegations and characterizations are denied.

Page 1 of 7 
 
Case 1:22-cv-00307-KAC-CHS Document 44 Filed 02/09/23 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 463
 3. In response to Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, the County denies that the Plaintiff

may bring this suit in a representative capacity pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and denies the

appropriateness of class certification.

4. Paragraph 3 is denied.

5. Paragraph 4 is denied.

6. Paragraph 5 is denied

7. Paragraph 6 is denied as regards any claim of the appropriateness of class

certification in this matter. Moreover, the County denies that it or any its agents violated any rights

in this circumstance.

8. Paragraph 7 is denied.

9. Paragraph 8 is denied, and the County denies the appropriateness of the Plaintiff

serving in a representative capacity for anyone else.

10. The County admits the allegations in Paragraph 9 to the extent that attorney Robin

Flores filed this and has filed a number of previous civil rights actions.

11. The County does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining

allegations in Paragraphs 10-12.

12. Paragraph 12 is denied.

13. The County admits Paragraph 13 on information and belief.

14. Paragraphs 14 through 17 are denied.

15. Paragraphs 18 through 23 are denied.

16. As to Paragraphs 24 through 31, no response is required regarding the nature of the

claims asserted by the Plaintiff; however, the County denies any liability based on those assertions.

Page 2 of 7 
 
Case 1:22-cv-00307-KAC-CHS Document 44 Filed 02/09/23 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 464
 17. The County admits the jurisdictional basis referenced in Paragraphs 32 through 34

but denies any liability based on the assertions made in such Paragraphs.

18. The County is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraph 35 through 38 and demands strict proof thereof.

19. The County admits the allegations contained in Paragraphs 39 and 40 but does not

have sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 41 and demands strict

proof thereof. The County denies any liability, however, based on those allegations.

20. Paragraph 42 requires no response from the County.

21. The County admits Paragraphs 43 and 44.

22. Paragraphs 45 and 46 contain legal conclusions which require no response from the

County; however, the County denies any liability based on those assertions.

23. The County is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraph 47 through 49 and demands strict proof thereof.

24. Paragraphs 50 through 52 are denied.

25. The County does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations

in Paragraphs 53 through 119 and demands strict proof thereof. The County denies any liability,

however, based on those allegations.

26. The Count admits Paragraph 120. As regards Paragraph 121 through 123, the

County avers that the statute speaks for itself, is not subject to any interpretation made by the

Plaintiff, and that said Paragraphs contain legal conclusions which do not require a response. The

County denies any liability, however, based on these allegations.

27. Paragraphs 124 and 125 are denied.

Page 3 of 7 
 
Case 1:22-cv-00307-KAC-CHS Document 44 Filed 02/09/23 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 465
 28. As regards Paragraph 126, the County avers that the statute speaks for itself, is not

subject to any interpretation made by the Plaintiff, and that said Paragraph does not require a

response. The County denies any liability, however, based on this Paragraph.

29. Paragraphs 127 and 128 are denied. In addition, these Paragraphs do not state any

alleged wrongful actions against the County or its officers for which they could be liable.

30. The County is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraphs 129 through 131 and demands strict proof thereof.

31. The County is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraphs 130 through 160 and demands strict proof thereof; however, these Paragraphs do not

state any wrongful actions against the County or its officers for which they could be liable. The

County further states those no allegations in those Paragraphs identify any alleged actions of the

County or its agents.

32. Paragraphs 161 through 164 are denied as stated.

33. The County admits Paragraph 165.

34. The County is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in

Paragraphs 166 through 168 and demands strict proof thereof; however, these Paragraphs do not

state any wrongful actions against the County or its officers for which they could be liable. The

County further states those no allegations in those Paragraphs identify any alleged actions of the

County or its agents.

35. Paragraphs 169 through 172 are denied. These Paragraphs do not state any specific

wrongful actions against the County or its officers for which they could be liable. The County

further states those no allegations in those Paragraphs identify any alleged actions of the County

or its agents.

Page 4 of 7 
 
Case 1:22-cv-00307-KAC-CHS Document 44 Filed 02/09/23 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 466
 36. Paragraphs 173 through 193 make claims against other Defendants and require no

response from the County.

37. Paragraph 194 requires no response.

38. Paragraphs 195 through 197 are denied.

39. Paragraphs 198 through 200 make claims against other Defendants and require no

response from the County.

40. Paragraph 201 requires no response.

41. Paragraphs 202 through 206 are denied.

42. Paragraphs 207 through 210 make claims against other Defendants and require no

response from the County.

43. Paragraph 211 requires no response.

44. Paragraphs 212 through 213 are denied.

Now having responded to the specific allegations in the Amended Complaint, the following

affirmative defenses are asserted by the County:

45. The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against the County upon which relief

may be granted. The Plaintiff has not alleged facts with any specificity that could constitute a basis

for liability against the County.

46. The Amended Complaint should be dismissed for failure to join the State of

Tennessee ex rel. Coty Wamp and/or Coty Wamp and/or the Hamilton County District Attorney’s

Office as necessary and indispensable parties.

47. Relief in this action is barred based upon the doctrines of res judicata and/or claim

preclusion.

48. The County is entitled to upon the terms, defenses, limitations and immunities

Page 5 of 7 
 
Case 1:22-cv-00307-KAC-CHS Document 44 Filed 02/09/23 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 467
 contained in the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, T.C.A. §29-20-101 et seq. (“GTLA”)

49. The County cannot be liable for any damages claimed by the Plaintiff because the

injury sustained by the Plaintiff was not proximately caused by or directly related to any

unconstitutional practice on the part of the County.

50. A jury trial is not available regarding the Plaintiff’s claims under GTLA.

  51. The County acted at all times in accordance with common law, statutory law, and

constitutional obligations without any actual intent to cause harm to the Plaintiff.

52. Any liability of the County for punitive damages, if any, is denied and limited by

the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.

53. Any liability of the County for punitive damages, if any, is denied and prohibited

by GTLA.

54. The Plaintiff’s claims fail to rise to the level of constitutional violations sufficient

to state a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”).

55. The Plaintiff’s claims brought against the County pursuant to Section 1983 fail to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted on a respondeat superior theory of liability.

56. Hamilton County was not deliberately indifferent.

57. To the extent that the Amended Complaint asserts a claim pursuant to the

provisions of the Tennessee Constitution, Tennessee does not recognize a private cause of action

for violations of the Tennessee Constitution.

58. The County did not act willfully, or in a knowing and willful manner, indicative

of bad faith, in accord with Arnold v. City of Chattanooga, 19 S.W.3d 779, 789 (Tenn. Ct. App.

1999)(citing Capital Case Resource Ctr of Tennessee, Inc. v. Woodall, 1992 WL 12217 (Tenn.

Ct. App. 1992).

Page 6 of 7 
 
Case 1:22-cv-00307-KAC-CHS Document 44 Filed 02/09/23 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 468
 59. The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for civil conspiracy against the

County, whether made under state or federal law, because the Plaintiff has not pled such claims

with sufficient particularity.

60. The County is immune from state law claims under GTLA as it retains such

immunity pursuant to the “civil rights” exception, T.C.A. §29-20-205(2).

61. The County is otherwise entitled to common law/sovereign immunity.

Wherefore, the County prays that this matter be dismissed with prejudice and that costs

and attorney fees be assessed against the Plaintiff.

          HAMILTON COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

By: s/R. Dee Hobbs

R. Dee Hobbs, BPR No. 10482
Sharon McMullan Milling, BPR No. 36876
625 Georgia Avenue, Suite 204
Chattanooga, TN 37402
Phone/Fax: 423-209-6150/6151
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 9th day of February, 2023, a copy of the foregoing was filed
electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system
to all parties indicated on the electronic filing receipt. All other parties will be served by regular
U.S. mail. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s electronic filing system.

s/R. Dee Hobbs

Page 7 of 7 
 
Case 1:22-cv-00307-KAC-CHS Document 44 Filed 02/09/23 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 469