Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ROY WARDEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF TUCSON, TUCSON MAY 1ST COALITION,
MIKE RANKIN, RICHARD MIRANDA, ETC.,
Defendants – Appellees
1
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 2 of 51
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Authorities 3
Jurisdictional Statement 5
Standard of Review 7
Case Overview 7
Preliminary Statement 9
Argument Summary 43
Conclusion 45
Prayer 49
Proof of Service 51
Certificate of Compliance 51
2
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 3 of 51
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases: Page
Gathright v. City of Portland, 439 F.3d 573 (9th Cir. 7, 9, 10, 15,
2006) 20, 23, 26,
28, 33, 35
Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual 8
Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995)
Rules:
28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) 5
42 U.S.C. § 1983 5
42 U.S.C. § 1985 5
28 U.S.C. § 1291 6
3
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 4 of 51
Other Authorities:
Arizona Constitution 43
4
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 5 of 51
1 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
2 (Doc. 130)
18 park?
19 II. Did U.S. District Court Judge David Bury commit re-
6
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 7 of 51
5 deadlines2?
6 STANDARD OF REVIEW
13 CASE OVERVIEW
7
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 8 of 51
4 Tucson Arizona.
17 appeal.
18
1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
4 Gathright at 575
5 “The Rankin Memo,” April 12, 2006. [Doc. 100-2, pages
2 (PSOF #4) & 13-14]
6 In 2006 the Tucson media, business, political and gov-
ernment establishment were intensely committed to
“pro-Raza”, open borders, cheap Mexican labor policy.
7 Titled by Tucson City Defendants as “Confidential
Memo”, April 27, 2006 [Doc. 100-2, pages 3 (PSOF #6)
& 16-23]
9
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 10 of 51
11
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 12 of 51
12
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 13 of 51
13
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 14 of 51
12 1:4-21]
14
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 15 of 51
16 20]
16
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 17 of 51
4 14:17-21]
12 4:17-5:2]
18
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 19 of 51
19
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 20 of 51
11 & 29]
20
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 21 of 51
21
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 22 of 51
14 26. The email chain confirms that the above Tucson Of-
9 stated:
23
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 24 of 51
13 page 12:7-13]
24
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 25 of 51
25
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 26 of 51
6 LEGAL ARGUMENT
26
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 27 of 51
27
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 28 of 51
25 stated:
7 in Gathright.
13 at 577, footnote 3.
14 45. In this case both TCC 21-4(a)(b) (6) & TCC 21-3(7)(4)
18 overturned.
19
20
29
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 30 of 51
30
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 31 of 51
31
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 32 of 51
8 emphasis added.)
14 Conference as follows:
32
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 33 of 51
33
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 34 of 51
35
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 36 of 51
7 olations” by stating:
37
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 38 of 51
21
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights,that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to
38
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 39 of 51
14 LEGAL ARGUMENT
39
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 40 of 51
40
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 41 of 51
8 THE COURT:
9 Okay. What I'm going to do with respect to
10 your suggested deadlines and those of the
11 defendant, I'm going to adopt the defendants'
12 proposed deadlines for discovery on the case
13 as it exists today.
21 MR. WARDEN:
22 Are these things other than what is set forth
23 in the Rules of Civil Procedure?
24 THE COURT:
25 In some respects. In other words, almost
26 every trade or practice has a way of doing
27 things. And they are not necessarily – for ex-
28 ample, an instruction – you can add the in-
29 gredients for baking a cake. They list them
30 out. But they don't necessarily tell you how
41
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 42 of 51
7 MR. WARDEN:
8 May I respond to that just briefly?
9 THE COURT:
10 Sure.
11 MR. WARDEN:
12 I think what we are talking about is the cus-
13 tom and practice of the court as it might poten-
14 tially deviate from the rules. And that's exactly
15 the nature of this complaint against Tucson
16 city officials.
25 THE COURT:
26 Okay. Okay. As long as you understand that
27 there's a certain decorum expected.
28 MR. WARDEN:
29 Are you talking about decorum in front of
30 Your Honor and the court?
31
32 THE COURT:
33 Right.
42
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 43 of 51
1 MR. WARDEN:
2 Certainly. I would not -- if there's anything
3 specific I can read. I would never do anything
4 to interfere with that. Certainly not know-
5 ingly. (Warden v. Miranda, 4:11-cv-00460
6 DCB-BPV Doc. 131, pages 9:4-10:17)
12 ARGUMENT SUMMARY
24 are maintained.
43
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 44 of 51
3 Judges;
8 126)
16 ¶60:
44
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 45 of 51
4 Gathright, and (3) violated the law and revealed bias when
6 Rule 16.
7 CONCLUSION
9 men, do not turn aside in their course and pass the judges
10 by.”23
16 the April 10, 2006 Riot in Armory Park, the Arizona Legis-
45
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 46 of 51
46
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 47 of 51
47
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 48 of 51
21 automated selection”.
48
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 49 of 51
5 ings.
6 PRAYER
11 tional;
18 available judge;
4 deems appropriate.
6
7 /s/ Roy Warden, Appellant in forma pauperis
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
50
Case: 17-16640, 12/26/2017, ID: 10702484, DktEntry: 8, Page 51 of 51
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
12
13
14
15 CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
51