STATE’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (SAAD)
SAAD Images
SAAD Text
Defendants, except the unnamed Doe Defendants, by and through the undersigned, in response to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, admit, deny, and allege as follows:
Senator Manning has been dismissed as a defendant in this action by Court Order, ECF No. 14 (Jan. 22, 2026) (“Order”). Therefore, Defendants deny all allegations and claims to the extent they include Senator Manning as a defendant, including but not limited to the allegations of paragraph 7.
Defendants deny the allegations of paragraphs 1 and 2.
Defendants acknowledge that paragraph 3 is a statement of the alleged claims in this action. Defendants deny the claims have merit.
Defendants admit the allegations of paragraphs 4 and 5.
Defendants are without sufficient knowledge as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 6, and therefore deny the same.
Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 8 except to deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any prospective injunctive relief.
Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 9.
Paragraph 10 is against unknown persons; therefore, Defendants are without sufficient knowledge as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 10, and deny the same.
Defendants admit that Plaintiff has advocated for veterans in the past. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 11, and therefore deny the same.
Defendants are without sufficient knowledge as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 12, and therefore deny the same.
In response to paragraph 13, admit that Plaintiff came to Representative Boshart Davis’s staff workspace on January 27, 2025 and talked about a legislative concept. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 13, and therefore deny the same.
In response to paragraphs 14 and 15, Defendants admit Plaintiff expressed frustration with alleged legislative delays and mentioned talking to the Oregonian. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraphs 14 and 15, including the specific words used, and therefore deny the same.
Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 16.Defendants are without sufficient knowledge as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 17, and therefore deny the same.
In response to paragraph 18, Defendants believe Plaintiff does have audio of some or all of the statements made that day; such audio speaks for itself. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 18.
Paragraphs 19-21 relate to claims that have been dismissed by the Court in its Order. Therefore those paragraphs are irrelevant and do not require a response.
In response to paragraph 22, Defendants admit Representative Boshart Davis sent Plaintiff a letter dated February 7, 2025, which speaks for itself.
Defendants admit Plaintiff did not receive formal notice or hearing regarding the letter. Defendants otherwise deny the allegations of paragraph 23.
Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 24.
In response to paragraph 25, Defendants admit Plaintiff emailed Representative Boshart Davis, among other recipients, on the morning of February 21, 2025. That email speaks for itself.
In response to paragraph 26, Defendants admit Legislative Administrator Brett Hanes sent Plaintiff a letter dated February 21, 2025, which speaks for itself.
Defendants deny the allegations of paragraphs 27-29.
Paragraphs 30-34 relate to claims that have been dismissed by the Court in its Order. Therefore those paragraphs are irrelevant and do not require a response.
Defendants deny paragraphs 36-37. Moreover, to the extent those paragraphs relate to any claims against the Oregon Department of Justice or Rebecca Maile (a Department of Justice attorney), those claims have previously been dismissed by the Court in its orders dated September 2, 2025 and November 26, 2025. ECF Nos. 8, 12.
Defendants admit the Oregon Department of Justice is an arm of the state and immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 38.
Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 39.
In response to paragraph 40, Defendants admit that at times, Plaintiff engaged in protected speech, but deny that he was so doing during some or all of the events of January 27, 2025.
In response to paragraph 41, subparagraphs “a” and “d” relate to claims that have been dismissed by the Court in its Order. Therefore those paragraphs are irrelevant and do not require a response. In response to the remaining allegations of paragraph 41, Defendants admit Plaintiff was sent the letters of January 27, 2025 and February 21, 2025, both of which speak for themselves. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 41.
Defendants deny the allegations of paragraphs 42 and 43.
Paragraph 44 is a conclusion of law that does not require a response.
Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 45.
Defendants deny the allegations of paragraphs 46-47.
Defendants admit Plaintiff did not receive formal notice or a hearing before the letters of January 27, 2025 and February 21, 2025 were issued. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 48.
Paragraph 49 is a conclusion of law that does not require a response.
Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 50.
Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 51-54. Moreover, to the extent those paragraphs relate to any claims regarding legislative hearings and bills, those claims have previously been dismissed by the Court in its Order.
In response to paragraph 55, Defendants incorporate their previous responses.
In response to paragraph 56, Defendants admit the terms set forth in the January 27, 2025 letter have expired and that the terms set forth in the February 21, 2025 letter are still in effect.
Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 56.
Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 57.
Defendants deny the allegations in plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief, and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever.
Except as expressly admitted above, Defendants deny each and every allegation of the Second Amended Complaint.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies
Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, barring his claim for Procedural Due Process.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Failure to Mitigate Damages
Plaintiff failed to mitigate damages.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Failure to State a Claim
Plaintiff’s claims for relief fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Qualified Immunity - Law Unsettled
Plaintiff’s claims are based upon actions of the Defendants about which the law was unsettled at the time and are therefore barred by the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Qualified Immunity - Good Faith
To the extent that any action complained of herein violated a right of Plaintiff, under the circumstances presented, no reasonable public official could have understood that their conduct represented a violation of Plaintiff’s clearly established rights. Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified good faith immunity.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Eleventh Amendment Immunity
The Eleventh Amendment precludes claims against the State officials in their official capacity, other than for prospective injunctive relief.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Legislative Immunity
Defendants are entitled to absolute legislative immunity for their performance of duties during the legislative session and for the purposes of managing the Legislative Assembly.
WHEREFORE, having fully answered Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, Defendants pray for a judgment in favor of Defendants against Plaintiff, dismissing Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint in its entirety and awarding Defendants their costs and disbursements incurred herein, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
