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
WARDEN RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT IN ACTION 0283

WARDEN RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT IN ACTION 0283

Ratings: (0)|Views: 31|Likes:
Published by Roy Warden
The Tucson City Attorney "Lies, Cheats and Steals" to Protect the Criminal Gang Running Tucson City Government.

So, What's NEW?
The Tucson City Attorney "Lies, Cheats and Steals" to Protect the Criminal Gang Running Tucson City Government.

So, What's NEW?

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Roy Warden on Jan 03, 2014
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

07/08/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 1
Roy Warden, Publisher
1
Common Sense II
2
3700 S Calle Polar
3
Tucson Arizona 85730
4
roywarden@hotmail.com
5 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8 9 10
ROY WARDEN, Plaintiff,
 In Pro Se
vs KATHLEEN ROBINSON, individually and in her official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Tucson Police Department, et al. Defendants
.
 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CV-13-O283-TUC-DCB PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORAL ARGUMENT REQUEST- ED THE HON. DAVID BURY
11
COMES NOW Roy Warden, Plaintiff in the above captioned case,
12
with his Response to, and Request that, the Court Deny Defendant Robin-
13
son’s Motion for Summary Judgment, for reasons set forth in the Affida-
14
vit of Roy Warden, in Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Material Facts, and
15
as set forth below:
16
1.
 
Plaintiff, who has not yet been afforded the opportunity to conduct
17
any discovery, respectfully submits: Defendant Robinson’s prema-
18
ture Motion for Summary Judgment is no more than an attempt to
19
“railroad” Plaintiff. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled Summary
20
Judgment “
should be denied, or the hearing on the motion to be con-
21
tinued, if the nonmoving has not had the time to make full discovery.”
22
Celotex v Catrett, 106 S.Ct, 2554, 477 U.S. 326 (1988)
23
 
 2
2.
 
Plaintiff herein submits his Response to Defendant Robinson’s Mo-
1
tion for Summary Judgment, his Separate Statement of Material
2
Facts and the Affidavit of Roy Warden, all of which demonstrate
3
there are several material facts in dispute, including, but not limited
4
to, Defendant Robinson’s presence in Armory Park on May 01,
5
2011, when she violated Plaintiff’s right to free speech and assem-
6
bly, as set forth in the First Amendment. (PSOF 8, Affidavit of Roy
7
Warden)
8
STANDARD REQUIRED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
9
Regarding the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56 ( c ) and De-
10
fendant Robinson’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the US Supreme Court
11
has clearly stated:
 
12
“Credibility determinations, weighing of evidence, and
13
drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury
14
functions, not those of a judge, whether his ruling is on
15
motion for summary judgment or for directed verdict; evi-
16
dence of the nonmovant is to be believed and all justifiable
17
inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Anderson v Liberty
18
Lobby, Inc. 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986)
19 20
PLAINTIFF HAS PRESENTED MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE
21
In the Affidavit of Roy Warden and the Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of
22
Material Facts, filed with this document, Plaintiff disputes various facts
23
asserted by Defendant Robinson, and presents evidence that Defendant Ro-
24
binson was present in Armory Park on May 1, 2011. (PSOF 8)
25
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
26
Defendant Robinson, in her Motion for Summary Judgment and State-
27
ment of Material Facts, uses an impressive 52 pages to set forth “facts,”
28
legal arguments, case citations, exhibits, affidavits, TPD Reports, hand
29
drawn maps, Tucson City Ordinances, selected photographs, the identity of
30
the 2011 exclusive use permit grantor, the identity of the 2011 exclusive
31
 
 3
use permit holder, etc, all in an effort to convince the Court that Defendant
1
Robinson’s conduct, and civilian conduct, on May 1, 2011, was lawful.
2
However, in spite of her excessive verbiage, Defendant Robinson con-
3
spicuously ignores
1
 “the law” as set forth in Gathright v City of Portland,
4
439 F.3d 573 (9
th
 Cir 2006) which puts a dagger through the heart of her
5
contention the City of Tucson has the authority to grant an exclusive use
6
permit to organizers of a community meeting in a public park, which also
7
permits them to deny entry, on the basis of viewpoint, to a member of that
8
same community.
9
Gathright v City of Portland, 439 F.3d 573 (9
th
 Cir 2006)
10
In Gathright, the holders of an exclusive use permit, issued pursuant to a
11
Portland City Ordinance, denied entry to a public park to Plaintiff Gath-
12
right, an evangelical political speaker who often aggressively spoke in op-
13
position to the “pro-gay” message conveyed by the “Gay Pride” event hold-
14
ers. Police subsequently arrested Plaintiff Gathright for violating the entry
15
prohibitions proscribed by the ordinance.
16
In Warden v Robinson, the holders of an exclusive use permit, issued
17
pursuant to a Tucson City Ordinance, denied entry to Armory Park to Plain-
18
tiff Warden, who often aggressively speaks in opposition to the “open
19
border” message conveyed by the permit holders. Defendant Robinson, as-
20
sisted by several TPD Officers, subsequently prevented Plaintiff Warden
21
from entering Armory Park, for the purpose of political speech, on May 01,
22
2011. (PSOF 8)
23
1
 City Attorney Mike Rankin issued a memo dated April 12, 2006 which cited Gathright as the authority which prevented TPD from denying Plaintiff entry into Armory Park on April 10, 2006 for the purpose of public speech in opposition to the “open border” message of exclusive use permit holders. (PSOF, Exhibit 1)

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)//-->