OTTUMWA — About the only thing all sides agree on is that John Lynch was in the Wapello County Jail on May 20, 2007. There’s not much more common ground in Lynch’s suit against jail staff and the county.

The defense is preparing a limited affirmative defense against accusations that they violated Lynch’s civil rights while he was in custody in 2007. They also appear to be laying the foundation for removing the suit from federal court.

Lynch filed the suit in May, three months after a state auditor’s report criticized the Wapello County Jail’s use of a restraint chair. The audit said Jeremy McDowell, an officer at the jail, struck a partially restrained defendant after being kicked by the man.

The state report identified Lynch only by his initials, but he later identified himself publicly. His suit, filed in federal court, names McDowell, Sheriff Don Kirkendall and Wapello County as defendants. Lynch seeks compensation for alleged injuries and attorney fees.

Lynch’s attorney filed an amended complaint May 27, more than a year after the arrest and restraint at issue in the case. This week, the defense responded with a nine-page answer.

The defense filing denies Lynch’s accusations that the officers at the jail used the restraint chair without justification and “maliciously and sadistically” attacked him. The state audit says the officers placed Lynch in the chair after he began banging his head against his cell window.

The defense asserts a qualified immunity against Lynch’s suit, based in part on the actions described in the audit. The filing says the jail staff used the chair “in self defense or for the protection, safety, and security of other third parties and/or of the plaintiff.”

The defendants also go on the offensive in the filing. Lynch’s condition is likely to be an issue should the case go to trial and the defense argues he was negligent in allowing himself to drink to the point of such severe intoxication:

“[D]efendants submit that plaintiff was negligent, and that the negligence of the plaintiff either bars plaintiff’s recovery on any claims or damages in this action, or ... that the negligence or fault of the plaintiff should be apportioned against any damages to which the plaintiff may be entitled.”

At the time of his arrest, Lynch’s preliminary breath test scored .239, nearly three times Iowa’s legal limit for intoxication.

Notably, the defense affirmative defense cites the Iowa legal code. That and other points in the filing appear to lay the groundwork for challenging whether Lynch’s filing should be allowed in federal court.

Matt Milner can be reached at (641) 683-5359 or via e-mail at mwmilner@mchsi.com