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

com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

ROY WARDEN, Plaintiff, IN PRO-SE Vs RICHARD MIRANDA, individually and in his official capacity as Chief of the Tucson Police Department; MICHAEL RANKIN, individually and in his official capacity as Tucson City Attorney; KATHLEEN ROBINSON, individually and in her official capacity as Assistant Chief of the Tucson Police Department; THE CITY OF TUCSON; and DOES 1-100, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CV-11-0460-TUC-DCB-BPV

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED THE HON. BERNARDO P. VELASCO

Plaintiff moves the Court to extend time to file a Response to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment at least 60 days through June 25, 2013. This Motion is further supported by the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and by the Declaration of Roy Warden, filed separately from this document. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTORITIES
1.

On February 04, 2013, subsequent to U.S. District Court Judge Cindy Jorgensen recusing herself from presiding over this case, Plaintiff published Pima County Bar Advises Warden On Judge Shopping 1

http://www.scribd.com/doc/123799592/THE-PIMA-COUNTY-BAR-ADVISESWARDEN-ON-JUDGE-SHOPPING
1

on the internet and sent a copy to all 1,500 readers of Arizona Common Sense, including some 1,200 members of the Pima County Bar.
2.

Subsequently; on or about April 02, 2013 Plaintiff, who had already spent substantial time preparing documents necessary for a conference with Counsel for Defendants on or before April 10, 2013 and required for the status conference now set for May 01, 2013, received the Order of this Court requiring Plaintiff to answer Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment no later than April 22, 2013. Thus; from time he received the Order of this Court regarding summary judgment, to the time his answer was due, this non-legal pro-se Plaintiff was given 19 days to answer summary judgment, along with finishing all preparations, including the joint report, necessary for the status hearing ordered by the Court for May 01, 2013. Therefore: on April 02, 2013 Plaintiff notified Counsel for Defendants that, due to family circumstances he intended to move the Court for additional time to answer summary judgment, and asked if they would join the motion or oppose it. As of the date of filing this Motion Counsel for Defendants has not responded. In his supporting Declaration, Plaintiff sets forth with particularity the family circumstances which now require the Plaintiff to Move this Court for a time extension. However; regarding this Motion: Plaintiffs has recently discovered the judge now presiding over this case, the Honorable David Bury, has an undisclosed conflict of interest arising out of another case, Lucas v Sowers, he presided over several years ago. Plaintiff is preparing the pleadings necessary to address this issue. Moreover; the time has come for Plaintiff (reluctantly) to advise the Court of the following: Plaintiff has shared every pleading and every

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Court Order in this action, and his previous actions, with the entire readership of Plaintiffs internet newsletter Arizona Common Sense, which includes some 1,200 members of the local bar.
9.

Frankly speaking: there is a growing uneasiness within the local legal community that this is a political case the Court wants to get rid of. A significant number of the bar (including a retired Superior Court Judge) have advised Plaintiff that, as a consequence of the musical chairs played by the Federal Judges who were assigned to this case subsequent to the mysterious departure of Judge Cindy Jorgenson for reasons of conflict of interest (when Judge Jorgenson, apparently, had no conflict for the nine months she presided over the case), Plaintiff should review the Rules of Conduct for Federal Judges and take appropriate action. Plaintiff has taken their advice, and now is preparing documents for the Ninth Circuit. However; in the interim, Plaintiff reminds the Court of the following dicta from Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) The Courts authority, possessed of neither the purse nor the sword, ultimately rests on sustained public confidence in its moral sanction. CONCLUSION Plaintiff herein declares this Motion is made in good faith and not made

10.

11.

12.

for the purposes of delay. // // // // // //

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 10th day of April, 2013. BY: _______________________ Roy Warden, Plaintiff

State of Arizona County of _____________ On this ____day of ____________________, 2013, before me the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared Roy Warden, known to me to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the same to be his free act and deed. My Commission Expires:_______________ _____________________ Notary

I hereby certify that on April 10, 2013, I served the attached document by mail, and by email, on the following: Viola Romero-Wright P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 Viola.romero@tucsonaz.gov BY: _______________________ Roy Warden, Plaintiff