1

2 3
4

5 6
7

Roy Warden, Publisher Common Sense II 1015 West Prince Road #131-182 Tucson Arizona 85705 roywarden@hotmail.com

'/

8 9 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ROY WARDEN, Plaintiff, IN FORMA PAUPERIS REPL Y TO RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE RICHARD MIRANDA, individually and in ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED his official capacity as Chief of the Tucson NOVEMBER 16,2012 Police Department; MICHAEL RANKIN, individually and in his capaci!y as Tucson City Attorney; KATHLEEN ROBINSON, individually and in her official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Tucson Police Department; DORMAND, individually and ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED in her capacity as Officer of the Tucson Police Department; FRIEDMAN, individually and in his capacity as Officer of the Tucson Police Department; FLORES, individually and in hIS capacity as Officer of the Tucson Police Department; KUGLER, individually and in his capacity as Officer of the Tucson Police Depart- THE HONORABLE DAVID BURY ment; THE CITY OF TUCSON; THE TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT, a legal entity of the City of Tucson, and DOES 1-100, Defendants. Vs No. CV 11-460 TUC DCB (BPV)

11

12 13 14 15 16

As ordered by the Court on December 07, 2012, comes now the Plaintiff, Roy Warden, with his Reply to Defendants' Response to Motion for Reconsideration, as set forth below:

1 2 3
4

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1.

On December 21, 2012 Defendants filed their Response to Plaintiff s Motion for Reconsideration, setting forth various alleged motion, including

"facts" and legal arguments regarding Plaintiffs

5 6
7

(1) the "fact" that Plaintiff waived his right to obj ect to the dismisssal of the Defendant Robinson Incident on May 01, 2012, and (2) the "fact" that " ... the Magistrate's Report and this Court's Order (Doc 49, 6, Paragraph 4) ordered (Plaintiff) to learn the names of unnamed Defendants in Count One, Paragraph C, for the alleged incident that occurred on May 1, 2010 in Armory Park." (Defendants' Response, 3:5-8)
2.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23

Plaintiff herein notes: Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration of the singular issue of the Court's dismissal of Plaintiffs action against

Defendant Robinson for her conduct on May 01, 2010, when she denied Plaintiff entry into Armory Park for the purpose of engaging in political speech on matters of public concern, as being "time barred" when clearly it was not, has resulted in a flurry of mystifying judicial actions including: (1) Judge Jorgenson's recusal for the ostensible purpose of avoiding "the appearance of impropriety," Judge Collins' recusal for the ostensible purpose of avoiding "the appearance of impropriety," Judge Zapata's recusal for the ostensible purpose of avoiding "the appearance of impropriety," and, subsequent to Plaintiff filing a Notice of Appeal, ment to Judge Bury. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
3.

the case reassign-

24
25

26 27 28

Regarding Plaintiffs

alleged "waiver" of Defendant Robinson for

her violation of Plaintiff s rights on May 01, 2010, Plaintiff respectfully submits: he did not waive his right to object to Robinson's

1 2 3
4

dismissal by not raising the issue in his "Objection to Magistrate's Report."

4.

Plaintiff respectfully submits: the issue has been fully briefed. All Plaintiff's argument set forth in his Motion for Reconsideration are fully incorporated herein. This Court requires no additional argument and Plaintiff submits none. It is within the sound discretion of whichever Judge who decides to preside over Plaintiff's case, at the moment a decision is needed, to rule on Plaintiff's motion however he! she sees fit, subject to Plaintiff exercising his right of appeal.

5 6
7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25

5.

However; regarding Defendants'

assertion that the Court has " ...

ordered (Plaintiff) to learn the names of unnamed Defendants in Count One, Paragraph C, for the alleged incident that occurred on May 1, 2010 in Armory Park," as set forth in paragraph 2 above (emphasis added), Plaintiff respectfully submits: this is yet another example of Defendants' numerous half-truths and deliberate misrepresentations to the Court.
6.

In fact: on November 16, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide "an explanation of what Plaintiff has done ... (and) a description of what discovery (Plaintiff) would undertake to learn ... " the

names of the unidentified officers who violated Plaintiff's rights on May 01, 2010, together with " ... the identity of at least one person who could be served with discovery." ber 16,2012 6:24-7:1 (emphasis added)
7.

Court Order Dated Novem-

Plaintiff complied with the Court's Order on December 05, 2012. See: "Compliance With Order Of The Court Dated November 16, 2012." However; as of this date Plaintiff has not yet learned the

26
27

identities of the unnamed Defendant Officers.

28

1 2 3
4

CONCLUSION Judge Jorgenson's recusal from this case for the ostensible purpose of avoiding the "appearance of impropriety," (after presiding over the case and making substantive rulings for nine months without any previous concern), and the subsequent recusal of three other U.S. District Court Judges, has shaken Plaintiff s confidence and created doubt as how best to proceed. Plaintiff has renewed his efforts to find counsel. In the meantime he has filed a Notice of Appeal, initiating a process which, (hopefully), will independently resolve all outstanding questions regarding (1) Defendant Robinson's inclusion in Plaintiffs suit for her conduct on May 01, 2010,

5 6
7

8
9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

and (2) Plaintiffs Right to Amend Complaint. PRAYER In the interests of justice, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to GRANT his Motion for Reconsideration, Motion, and set forth above. for reasons set forth in the

RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED this orJay BY:

18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

W--

of January, 2013.

oy Warden, Plaintiff Original and one copy filed with the Court on January 02, 2013. I hereby certify that on January 02, 2013, I served the attached document by mail, and by email, on the following:

Viola Romero-Wright Principal Assistant Tucson City Attorney P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 Viola.romero@tucsonaz.gov BY: Roy Warden, Plaintiff