Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
JUDGE JORGENSON DISMISSES TUCSON ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF KATHLEEN ROBINSON FROM WARDEN V MIRANDA W/O LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

JUDGE JORGENSON DISMISSES TUCSON ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF KATHLEEN ROBINSON FROM WARDEN V MIRANDA W/O LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Ratings: (0)|Views: 26 |Likes:
Published by Roy Warden

More info:

Published by: Roy Warden on Dec 15, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/12/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Case:11-cv-00460-CKJ-BPVDocument
#:
49-1DateFiled:
11116/2012
Page1of7
I
13141516171819202122232425262728
----
.
1
WO
234
5
6
7
8
9ROYWARDEN,INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHEDISTRICTOFARIZONA
))
)
)No.CIV11-460-TUC-CKJ(BPV)
))
)ORDER
))
-------------------------)
10Plaintiff,
11
vs.12BOBWALKUP,et
al.,
Defendants.OnOctober2,2012,MagistrateJudgeBernardoP.VelascoissuedaReportand Recommendation(Doc.46)inwhichherecommendedthatDefendants'MotiontoDismiss beconstruedasaMotionforJudgmentonthePleadings(Doc.28)andthatitbegrantedin partanddeniedinpart.TheMagistrateJudgefurtherrecommendedthattheTucsonPoliceDepartment,Does1-100,and,absentashowofcause,OfficerFloresbedismissedfromthisactioninitsentirety.TheMagistrateJudgealsorecommendedthatPlaintiffRoyWarden("Warden")beorderedtoprovideinformationregardingunnamedDefendants.Lastly,the MagistrateJudgerecommendedtheCourtdenyWarden'smotiontoamend.(Doc.40)MagistrateJudgeVelascoadvisedthepartiesthat,pursuantto28U.S.c.
§
636(b),any writtenobjectionsweretobefiledandservedwithin14daysafterbeingservedwithacopy oftheReportandRecommendation.Wardenhasfiledanobjection;Defendantshavefiledaresponse.Wardenhasrequestedoralargument.TheCourtdeclinestoschedulethismatter fororalargument.
 
PleadingStandardsSetForthbyFed.R.Civ.P.8(a)(2)
Wardenarguesthatthemagistratejudgeincorrectlyappliedthestandardsforstatingaclaimuponwhichreliefmaybegranted.Ineffect,Wardenassertsthatthemagistratejudge didnotcorrectlyapplythestandardsfordeterminingwhetherclaimsuponwhichreliefcanbegranted.
SeeStarrv.Baca,
652F.3d1202,1216(9thCir.2011)("Iftherearetwo alternativeexplanations,oneadvancedbydefendantandtheotheradvancedbyplaintiff,bothofwhichareplausible,plaintiffscomplaintsurvivesamotiontodismiss[.]").TheCourtwillnotseparatelyaddressWarden'sargument,butwillconsiderthestandardsinconsideringtheReportandRecommendation.
Case:11-cv-00460-CKJ-BPVDocument
#:
49-1DateFiled:11/16/2012Page2of7
1
2
3
4
5
6
78
9
1011
StatuteofLimitations
12Wardenarguesthatexceptions,assetforthin
NationalRRPassengerCorp.v.
13
Morgan,
536U.S.101(2002),permithimtoplead"allegationswhichfalloutsidethetwo 14yearstatuteoflimitationstosupporttimelyclaims."Objections,p.5.Wardenappearsto 15asserttheSupremeCourtpermits"continuingviolations"inhostileworkenvironment16claims,"pattern-or-practice"claims,andtosupportatimelyclaim.TheCourtagreeswith 17WardenthattheSupremeCourt"allowedtheapplicationofthe[continuingviolation]18doctrinetoaclaimforhostileworkenvironment,whichbyitsnatureconsistsofmultiple19relatedactionsthatbythemselvesmaynotconstitutediscrimination,butintheaggregate20createanongoingdiscriminatoryworkplaceenvironment."
Darensburgv.Metropolitan 21Transp.,
611F.Supp.2d994,1040(N.D.Cal.2009),
citingMorgan,
536U.S.at122.22However,theCourtspecificallystatedthatitwasnotconsidering"thetimelyfilingquestion 23withrespectto'pattern-or-practice'claimsbroughtbyprivatelitigantsasnone[were]at24issue[in
Morgan].Morgan,
536U.S.at115,n.9.Wardenhasnotstatedahostilework25environmentclaimand,inlightofthegeneralruleprohibitingcontinuingviolationclaims, 26theCourtdeclinestoconsiderwhetherapattern-or-practiceclaimisappropriate.27Astopermittingallegationstosupportatimelyclaim,theSupremeCourtandthe28-2-
 
Case:11-cv-00460-CKJ-BPVDocument
#:
49-1DateFiled:11/16/2012Page3of7
r
1NinthCircuithaveheldthattime-barredconductmaybeofferedasevidenceof2discriminatoryintenttosupporttimelyclaims.
Morgan,
536U.S.at113;
UnitedAirlinesInc.3v.Evans,
431U.S.533,558(1977);
Lyonsv.England,
307F.3d1092,
1111
(9thCir.2002)4(time-barredactsofemploymentdiscrimination"relevantasbackgroundandmaybe5consideredbythetrieroffactinassessingthedefendant'sliability....").Inotherwords,6Wardenispermittedtoallegesuchclaimsinsupportofhistimelyclaims,butthetime-barred7claimsarenotpermitted.8TheCourtagreeswiththemagistratejudge'srecommendationthatCountOne,9ParagraphsAandB,CountThree,ParagraphA,andCountFour,ParagraphsAthroughE,10andthefirsttwoclaimsofParagraphFarebarredbythestatuteoflimitations.Theseclaims
11
willbedismissed.1213141516171819202122232425262728
RetaliationClaimsAgainstDormandandFriedman
Wardenassertsthatthemagistratejudgeappliedasummaryjudgmentstandardratherthandeterminingwhetherhehadstatedaclaimuponwhichreliefcouldbegranted.Themagistratejudgestated:HavingreviewedCountTwooftheAmendedComplaint,theMagistrateJudgefindsthattheallegationsdonotestablishthatOfficersFriedmanandDormand'scitationofPlaintiffandimpoundmentofhisvehiclewasmotivatedinanywaybythePlaintiffsexerciseofconstitutionallyprotectedactivity.PlaintiffdidnotallegethathewasengagedinaconstitutionallyprotectedactivityonthedateofhisencounterwithOfficersFriedmanandDormand,nordoesheallegefactstosupporthispositionthattheofficersinducedPlaintifftodriveanunregisteredvehicleonasuspendedlicenseforthepurposeofcitinghimandimpoundinghisvehiclewithanintenttochillhisspeechorpunishhimbasedonhisexerciseofprotectedspeech.Furthermore,DefendantsplainlyhadprobablecausetocitePlaintiff;Wardendoesnotdisputethathedroveonasuspendedlicense.ThoughPlaintiffallegesthatheinformedOfficersFriedmanandDormandofhisspeakingappearancesinfrontoftheTucsonCityCounsel,PlaintiffdidnotdosountilaftertheofficershaddecidedtocitePlaintiffandconfiscatethecar.(SeeDoc.6,
<][<][
102,105-06)PlaintiffallegedthatremarksmadebyotherTPDofficerswhileinvestigatinganotherincidentatPlaintiff'sresidence"confirmedTPD'sanimustowardsPlaintiff."(Id.,
<][
115)This,however,isinsufficienttoallegearetaliationclaimagainstOfficersFriedmanandDormand.PlaintiffsubmitsthattheeventswhichoccurredonAugust3,2009wereanexerciseofthelong-standingcustomandpolicyofTucsonCityOfficialstousetheirpublicoffice,andthecoloroflaw,toengageinretaliatoryactsagainstindividualswhoexercisetheirFirstAmendmentrightsinoppositiontotheofficial'spersonallyortheir-3-

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->