Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
WARDEN REPLY TO STATE'S RESPONSE TO WARDEN MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

WARDEN REPLY TO STATE'S RESPONSE TO WARDEN MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Ratings: (0)|Views: 143|Likes:
Published by Roy Warden

Tucson City Activist Roy Warden Files His Reply to State's Response to Warden Motion For Reconsideraton in Warden v Tucson City Officials 2011

Tucson City Activist Roy Warden Files His Reply to State's Response to Warden Motion For Reconsideraton in Warden v Tucson City Officials 2011

More info:

Published by: Roy Warden on Jan 03, 2013
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

09/17/2013

pdf

text

original

 
1
RoyWarden,Publisher
2
CommonSenseII
3
1015WestPrinceRoad
4
#131-182
5
TucsonArizona85705
6
roywarden@hotmail.com
7
8
9
10
'/
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTDISTRICTOFARIZONAROYWARDEN,Plaintiff,
INFORMAPAUPERIS
VsRICHARDMIRANDA,individuallyandinhisofficialcapacityasChiefoftheTucsonPoliceDepartment;MICHAELRANKIN,individuallyandinhiscapaci!yasTucsonCityAttorney;KATHLEENROBINSON,individuallyandinherofficialcapacityasAssistantChiefoftheTucsonPoliceDepartment;DORMAND,individuallyandinhercapacityasOfficeroftheTucsonPoliceDepartment;FRIEDMAN,indivi-duallyandinhiscapacityasOfficeroftheTucsonPoliceDepartment;FLORES,individuallyandinhIScapacityasOfficeroftheTucsonPoliceDepartment;KUGLER,individuallyandinhiscapacityasOfficeroftheTucsonPoliceDepart-ment;THECITYOFTUCSON;THETUCSONPOLICEDEPARTMENT,alegalentityoftheCityofTucson,andDOES1-100,Defendants.No.CV11-460TUCDCB(BPV)REPLYTORESPONSETOMOTIONFORRECONSIDERATIONOFTHEORDEROFTHISCOURTDATEDNOVEMBER16,2012ORALARGUMENTREQUESTEDTHEHONORABLEDAVIDBURY
11
12
AsorderedbytheCourtonDecember07,2012,comesnowthe
13
Plaintiff,RoyWarden,withhisReplytoDefendants'ResponsetoMotion
14
forReconsideration,assetforthbelow:
1516
1
 
1
STATEMENTOFFACTS
2
1.
OnDecember21,2012DefendantsfiledtheirResponsetoPlain-
3
tiffsMotionforReconsideration,settingforthvariousalleged
4
"facts"andlegalargumentsregardingPlaintiffsmotion,including
5
(1)the"fact"thatPlaintiffwaivedhisrighttoobjecttothedismiss-
6
saloftheDefendantRobinsonIncidentonMay01,2012,and(2)
7
the"fact"that"...theMagistrate'sReportandthisCourt'sOrder
8
(Doc49,6,Paragraph4)ordered(Plaintiff)tolearnthenamesof
9
unnamedDefendantsinCountOne,ParagraphC,fortheallegedin-
10
cidentthatoccurredonMay1,2010inArmoryPark."(Defen-
11
dants'Response,3:5-8)
12
2.
Plaintiffhereinnotes:PlaintiffsMotionforReconsiderationofthe
13
singularissueoftheCourt'sdismissalofPlaintiffsactionagainst
14
DefendantRobinsonforherconductonMay01,2010,whenshe
15
deniedPlaintiffentryintoArmoryParkforthepurposeofengaging
16
inpoliticalspeechonmattersofpublicconcern,asbeing"time
17
barred"whenclearlyitwasnot,hasresultedinaflurryofmysti-
18
fyingjudicialactionsincluding:(1)JudgeJorgenson'srecusalfor
19
theostensiblepurposeofavoiding"theappearanceofimpropriety,"
20
JudgeCollins'recusalfortheostensiblepurposeofavoiding"the
21
appearanceofimpropriety,"JudgeZapata'srecusalfortheostensi-
22
blepurposeofavoiding"theappearanceofimpropriety,"and,sub-
23
sequenttoPlaintifffilingaNoticeofAppeal,thecasereassign-
24
menttoJudgeBury.
25
MEMORANDUMOFPOINTSANDAUTHORITIES
26
3.
RegardingPlaintiffsalleged"waiver"ofDefendantRobinsonfor
27
herviolationofPlaintiffsrightsonMay01,2010,Plaintiffrespect-
28
fullysubmits:hedidnotwaivehisrighttoobjecttoRobinson's
2
 
1
dismissalbynotraisingtheissueinhis"ObjectiontoMagistrate's
2
Report."
3
4.
Plaintiffrespectfullysubmits:theissuehasbeenfullybriefed.All
4
Plaintiff'sargumentsetforthinhisMotionforReconsiderationare
5
fullyincorporatedherein.ThisCourtrequiresnoadditionalargu-
6
mentandPlaintiffsubmitsnone.Itiswithinthesounddiscretionof
7
whicheverJudgewhodecidestopresideoverPlaintiff'scase,atthe
8
momentadecisionisneeded,toruleonPlaintiff'smotionhowever
9
he!sheseesfit,subjecttoPlaintiffexercisinghisrightofappeal.
10
5.
However;regardingDefendants'assertionthattheCourthas"...
11
ordered(Plaintiff)
tolearnthenames
ofunnamedDefendantsin
12
CountOne,ParagraphC,fortheallegedincidentthatoccurredon
13
May1,2010inArmoryPark,"assetforthinparagraph2above
14
(emphasisadded),Plaintiffrespectfullysubmits:thisisyetanother
15
exampleofDefendants'numeroushalf-truthsanddeliberatemisrep-
16
resentationstotheCourt.
17
6.
Infact:onNovember16,2012,theCourtorderedPlaintifftopro-
18
vide"an
explanation
ofwhatPlaintiffhasdone...(and)adescription
19
ofwhatdiscovery(Plaintiff)
wouldundertake
tolearn..."the
20
namesoftheunidentifiedofficerswhoviolatedPlaintiff'srightson
21
May01,2010,togetherwith"...theidentityofatleastoneperson
22
whocouldbeservedwithdiscovery."CourtOrderDatedNovem-
23
ber16,20126:24-7:1(emphasisadded)
24
7.
PlaintiffcompliedwiththeCourt'sOrderonDecember05,2012.
25
See:"ComplianceWithOrderOfTheCourtDatedNovember16,
26
2012."However;asofthisdatePlaintiffhasnotyetlearnedthe
27
identitiesoftheunnamedDefendantOfficers.
28
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

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