1

Roy Warden, Publisher 1

Common Sense II 2
3700 S. Calle Polar 3
Tucson Arizona 85730 4
roywarden@hotmail.com 5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 9
10
ROY WARDEN,

Plaintiff, IN FORMA
PAUPERIS

Vs

RICHARD MIRANDA,
et.al.,

DEFENDANTS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV 11-0460 TUC DCB

OPPOSITION TO MAGISTRATE REPORT




(Hon. Judge David C. Bury)
11
Plaintiff addresses issues raised in the Magistrate Report (DOC 123) as set 12
forth in sections I through VIII below: 13
I. THE LENGTH OF PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT 14
1. The Magistrate is in error when he states: 15
Plaintiffs complaint is not simple and concise, it is dense 16
and verbose, with so many factual averments of such speci- 17
ficity, re-alleged in every count, that it is impossible to discern 18
which facts support, or are even relevant to, which claims. 19
(DOC 123, 3:6-13) 20
21
Plaintiffs proposed SAC is 37 pages long, with over 100 22
paragraphs of largely irrelevant facts and allegations re-al- 23
leged in each and every count as the basis for that count, with 24
each count raising multiple claims against multiple defend- 25
ants. This places the onus on the Court to decipher which, if 26
any, facts support which claims, as well as to determine 27
2

whether a plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought. (DOC 123, 1
3:13-19) 2
3
2. However; when deleted text is removed and new
1
underlined text is 4
added, (as it supports the one remaining event subject to this suitthe 5
denial of Plaintiffs rights in Armory Park Tucson Arizona on May 1, 6
2010), the Second Amended Complaint
2
(SAC) is only 29 pages long 7
(with three additional pages for Plaintiffs exhibit). 8
3. Moreover; the issue of alleged prolixity is untimely; Defendants failed 9
to raise it when they were served the First Amended Complaint
3
in 2011. 10
4. Defendants first alleged prolixity on April 18, 2014, 29 months after ser- 11
vice of the First Amended Complaint. (DOC 120, 2:17-3:21) 12
5. This is the first time the Court has issued a recommendation challenging 13
the complaints verbosity. 14
6. Significantly; on April 25, 2014 Plaintiff offered to further amend his 15
complaint
4
and delete all commentary except the bare bone facts as 16
they support his claims against (1) Defendant Azuelo (previously misi- 17
dentified as Robinson), (2) Defendants Johnson and Wooldridge (pre- 18
viously misidentified as the Unidentified Officer), and (3) new De- 19
fendants Grey, Ochoa, Rozema, Stamatopoulous, Azuelo, Sayre, Johnson, 20

1
The new text derives solely from defendants Initial Disclosures.

2
The SAC is nearly identical to the First Amended Complaint except for (1) a signif-
icant number of deletions Plaintiff made subsequent to the Court dismissing various
causes of action, and (2) the addition of new facts and allegations which were revealed
in Defendants Initial Disclosures (DOC 115), only insofar as they arise out of the sin-
gular event still subject to this suit: Defendants violation of Plaintiffs rights in Ar-
mory Park on May 1, 2010.

3
The First Amended Complaint is the only complaint served upon Defendants.

4
Plaintiff will submit a Third Amended Complaint, as permitted by law.
3

Wooldridge, Teitelbaum, and Miles who, as Plaintiff first learned from De- 1
fendants Initial Disclosures, worked in concert, formulated a plan and in- 2
structed Defendants Azuelo, Johnson and Wooldridge to violate Plaintiffs 3
rights in Armory Park Tucson Arizona on May 1, 2010; the singular re- 4
maining event subject to this suit. (DOC 122; 10: 25-11:3) 5
II. PLAINTIFF HAS A RIGHT TO AMEND COMPLAINT 6
7. The Magistrate is in error when he recommends the Court deny Plaintiff 7
opportunity to further amend his complaint. (DOC 123, 2:19-4:14.) 8
8. For the first time in more than two years since this case was filed, the Court 9
states verbosity as a reason to dismiss complaint, without right to amend. 10
(DOC 123, 2:19-4:4) 11
9. The Court, for the first time in these proceedings, provides Plaintiff with a 12
notice of his complaints deficiencies, which the Court is required to do 13
before dismissing a pro-se complaint: 14
In Armstrong v. Rushing, 352 F.2d 836, 837 (9th Cir.1965), 15
we established that a pro se litigant bringing a civil rights suit 16
in forma pauperis is entitled to five procedural protections. 17
These are: 18
(1)process issued and served, (2) notice of any motion there- 19
after made by defendant or the court to dismiss the complaint 20
and the grounds therefor, (3) an opportunity to at least submit 21
a written memorandum in opposition to such motion, (4) in 22
the event of dismissal, a statement of the grounds therefor, 23
and (5) an opportunity to amend the complaint to overcome 24
the deficiency unless it clearly appears from the complaint 25
that the deficiency cannot be overcome by amendment. 26
The rule favoring liberality in amendments to pleadings is 27
particularly important for the pro se litigant. Presumably un- 28
skilled in the law, the pro se litigant is far more prone to mak- 29
ing errors in pleading than the person who benefits from the 30
representation of counsel. Indeed, the Supreme Court has held 31
that allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent 32
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. 33
4

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 1
L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (Per Curiam); see also Maurer v. Individ- 2
ually and as Members of Los Angeles County Sheriff's 3
Dept., 691 F.2d 434, 437 (9th Cir.1982); Gillespie v. Civi- 4
letti, 629 F.2d 637, 640 (9th Cir.1980). 5
The requirement that courts provide a pro se litigant with no- 6
tice of the deficiencies in his or her complaint helps ensure 7
that the pro se litigant can use the opportunity to amend effec- 8
tively. Without the benefit of a statement of deficiencies, the 9
pro se litigant will likely repeat previous errors. This is 10
equally true for the pro se litigant who amends his complaint 11
at his own instance without any guidance from the court. 12
Amendments that are made without an understanding of un- 13
derlying deficiencies are rarely sufficient to cure inadequate 14
pleadings. Noll v Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446 15
16
10. In a significant number of other Title 42 1983 cases the Ninth Circuit has 17
stated the desirability of permitting a pro-se to amend complaint to correct 18
error; clearly complaint amendment furthers one of the basic objectives of 19
the F.R.C.P.: the determination of cases on the merits, not technical defi- 20
ciencies. 21
11. Therefore; now that the Court has stated Plaintiffs complaints deficiency, 22
Plaintiff will submit a Third Amended Complaint, irrespective of the warn- 23
ing given in the Magistrates Report. (DOC 123, 4:1-5) 24
12. This bare bones Third Amended Complaint, (subtracting the deleted por- 25
tions) will reduce the length of Plaintiffs proposed TAC to 12 pages. 26
(Exhibit 1) 27
III. THE COURT CAUSED A THREE YEAR DELAY 28
13. The Magistrate is in error when he states: 29
Additionally, the undersigned finds that the undue delay is 30
attributable to Plaintiff. The only reason Plaintiff cites for the 31
delay in seeking leave to amend is that he misplaced a DVD 32
for over three years. (DOC 123, 5:8-12) 33
5

14. However; Plaintiff was only obliged to notice plead in his First Amended 1
Complaint: 2
Under the federal rules a complaint is required only to give 3
the notice of the claim such that the opposing party may de- 4
fend himself or herself effectively. The theory of the federal 5
rules is that once notice-giving pleadings have been served, 6
the parties are to conduct discovery in order to learn more 7
about the underlying facts. When they have learned the facts, 8
the parties can settle or seek judgment. Starr v Baca, 632 9
F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011) 10
15. Until February 2014 Plaintiff did not have access to a DVD
5
record of the 11
May 1, 2010 Armory Park violation to his rights but instead relied upon his 12
imperfect memory, the Rules of Procedure, notice pleading, discovery and 13
the production of documents to prove his claim,
6
documents including an 14
After Action Report, TPD created Video and TPD Incident Reports, all- 15
created by TPD officers on May 1, 2010 or shortly thereafter. 16
16. Had the Court granted Plaintiff the scheduling conference required by Rule 17
16 within 120 days of service of complaint, Plaintiff would have com- 18
menced discovery in 2012, gained the data he needed to prove his claim, 19
and moved to amend complaint accordingly. 20
17. Instead of working to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determi- 21
nation of every action the rules require, Defendants employed a legal 22
strategy intended to create confusion, expense and delay, avoid document 23
disclosure and forestall the production of evidence which Plaintiff needed 24
to properly amend his complaint and prove his claim. 25

5
See Section IV and the Affidavits of Roy Warden and Jim Kay, attached to and in-
corporated by reference in this document.

6
Plaintiff neither had possession nor was he obliged to produce his DVD until subse-
quent to the Scheduling Conference and Initial Disclosures.
6

18. Defendants began this strategy on April 6, 2012 when they moved the Court 1
to stay the Rule 16 mandatory scheduling conference (DOC 29) which the 2
Court granted. (DOC 30) 3
19. For the next two years Defendants and the Court denied Plaintiff access to 4
the documents he needed to amend his complaint and prove his case, com- 5
pelled Plaintiff to submit to two Motions for Summary Judgment and two 6
years of wasteful pre-trial activities, denied Plaintiffs Rule 56 (f) Re- 7
quest to Stay Summary Judgment Until Conclusion of Discovery, etc.; two 8
years of expense, frustration and delay, which the Court now attributes to 9
Plaintiff and uses as justification to dismiss complaint. 10
20. The Rules of Civil Procedure are meant for holistic, not capricious applica- 11
tion. 12
21. Plaintiff respectfully submits: it was Defendants and the Court, not Plain- 13
tiff, who caused the nearly three year delay for which the Court now holds 14
Plaintiff responsible and now uses as a basis to dismiss Plaintiffs claims. 15
IV. PLAINTIFF DID NOT POSSESS THE MISSING DVD 16
22. The Magistrate is in error, and he displays bias, regarding Plaintiffs pos- 17
session of a DVD record of Defendants violating Plaintiffs rights on May 18
1, 2010. 19
As noted above, Plaintiff was in possession of the infor- 20
mation that revealed the name of the unidentified TPD 21
officer, but due to his lack of diligence he listed the defend- 22
ant as the unidentified TPD officer. Plaintiffs statements 23
regarding the identification of the unidentified TPD of- 24
ficer are inconsistent and misleading. Plaintiff has previ- 25
ously stated that he did not have access to a DVD of events 26
which occurred in Armory Park on May 1, 2010 when he 27
filed his Complaint for damages in this action. (DOC 123, 28
7:3-11) 29
This assertion is disingenuous at best as the DVD was ad- 30
mittedly in Plaintiffs possession. Moreover, even if the 31
7

DVD would not have provided Plaintiff with the unidenti- 1
fied officers name without comparing it to the names listed 2
on the Special Operations Plan May 1st Coalition March & 3
Rally, this document was submitted by Defendants on 4
June 6, 2013, as an exhibit submitted in support of Defend- 5
ant Robinsons motion for summary judgment. (DOC 123, 6
7:11-17) 7
8
Plaintiff does not explain why he waited nearly ten months 9
to move to amend the complaint to identify the unnamed 10
TPD officer, or to make a notification of substitution. 11
(DOC 123, 7:17-20) 12
23. Plaintiff now provides a full explanation
7
regarding diligence, the miss- 13
ing DVD and why he waited to amend complaint: 14
A. Prior to writing the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff did not have 15
access to his DVD record of Defendants violations of his rights in Ar- 16
mory Park on May 1, 2010, for reasons described in particularity in the 17
Affidavits of Roy Warden and Jim Kay, incorporated by reference and 18
attached to this document. 19
B. Subsequent to the 2011 filing of the First Amended Complaint in which 20
Plaintiff was only legally obliged to notice plead as per Starr v. Baca, 21
Plaintiff renewed his effort to locate the missing DVD, even though 22
he was not obliged to use it to prove his case or provide it to Defendants 23
until completion of the Scheduling Conference and the provision of In- 24
itial Disclosures, a process mandated by FRCP 16 to avoid wasteful 25
pretrial activity and unnecessary delay,
8
a rule this Court steadfastly 26
refused to implement until 2014. 27

7
See Warden Affidavit in Support of Objection to Magistrate Report Dated May 5,
2014, and Jim Kay Affidavit in Support of Objection to Magistrate Report Dated
May 5, 2014 filed with and incorporated by reference in this document.

8
Wasteful pretrial activity and unnecessary delay is a tactic Defendants have inten-
tionally employed to exhaust Plaintiffs resources and defeat his claim.
8

C. Moreover; ever since May 1, 2010 Defendants were in possession doc- 1
uments Plaintiff was entitled to in 2012, from the get-go
9
, to prove his 2
case, including but not limited to (1) an After Action Report created 3
subsequent to May 1, 2010, (2) TPD Incident Reports and TPD Video, 4
created on May 1, 2010, (all of which Defendants still refuse to disclose 5
in spite of Plaintiffs repeated requests) which prove Defendants viola- 6
tion of Plaintiffs rights as per Gathright on May 1, 2010, and provide 7
the true identities of the officers who created the violations, independent 8
of Plaintiffs missing DVD, thus allowing Plaintiff to effectively 9
amend his complaint. 10
D. On December 16, 2013, in Plaintiffs Opposition to Magistrates Report, 11
Plaintiff disclosed to the Court the following: 12
Moreover, Plaintiff informs the Court: Recently, on Plain- 13
tiffs behalf, a portable hard drive containing the video rec- 14
ords Plaintiff has relied upon to support his allegation that De- 15
fendant Robinson
10
was in fact present in Armory Park on 16
May 01, 2010, was submitted for repair to Computer Guru, 17
located at 510 E. Ft. Lowell Rd., Tucson Arizona 85705. 18
19
However; Plaintiff, whose poverty had prevented him from 20
attempting repair of the device at an earlier date, does not 21
know if the device can be economically repaired, or whether 22
or not it contains the video records he seeks. (DOC 94, 2:21- 23
3:6) 24
25


9
The express purpose of FRCP Rule 16, requiring the Court to set a scheduling con-
ference no later than 120 days of service of complaint, is to discourage wasteful
pretrial activities that Defendants have engaged in since the commencement of this
case.

10
Regarding Robinson; On December 16, 2013 Plaintiff repeats the mistake he made
in the First Amended Complaint regarding Robinson, due to the fact the Court had
not permitted Plaintiff discovery he was due, which proves it was Azuelo, not Rob-
inson, who denied Plaintiff entry into Armory Park on May 1, 2010.

9

E. On December 16, 2013 Plaintiff made the same disclosure, under oath, 1
in his Affidavit in Support of Opposition to Magistrates Report (Doc 2
94-1, 2: paragraphs 5-7) 3
F. Thus; on December 16 2013 the Court had uncontroverted evidence of 4
the existence of the DVD in question, the fact that it was missing, and 5
a description of Plaintiffs efforts to recover the data on it. 6
G. On January 6, 2014, under oath, Plaintiff again supplied the Court with 7
the same information regarding the missing DVD.
11
(Doc 98, 1-12) 8
H. Sometime in early February 2014, Plaintiff had delivered to his current 9
residence, located at 3700 S. Calle Polar, Tucson Arizona, a half dozen 10
boxes of personal items which he had stored at 1242 W. Knox Place, 11
Tucson Arizona 85705 which an Order of the Tucson Municipal Court 12
had denied Plaintiff access to since May 2013. 13
I. One of the boxes contained the long-sought missing DVD created by 14
affiant Jim Kay which documents Defendants violation of Plaintiffs 15
rights in Armory Park on May 1, 2010. 16
J. Plaintiff reviewed the missing DVD; then, on February 26, 2014, 17
Plaintiff provided the Court specific information on the true identities 18
of the officers who violated Plaintiffs rights on May 1, 2010Azuelo, 19
Wooldridge, and Johnsonwhich Plaintiff, in the absence of discovery, 20
had previously mistakenly identified as Robinson and Unidentified. 21
(Plaintiffs Case Management Report, DOC 108) 22
K. On the basis of data obtained from the missing DVD the Magistrate 23
expressly invited
12
Plaintiff to submit a Motion for Substitution of Par- 24
ties, and Motion to Amend Complaint on March 6, 2014. 25

11
Subsequent to receipt of Plaintiffs Answer to Summary Judgment, and included
documents, Defendants withdrew their MSJ.

12
Plaintiff has ordered a transcripts.
10

L. Plaintiff attaches his own Affidavit and the Affidavit of Jim Kay in Support 1
of Plaintiffs Opposition to Magistrates Report, describing in particularity 2
(1) Plaintiffs diligent search for the missing DVD, (2) the fact the DVD 3
had been removed from Plaintiffs possession sometime prior to the sub- 4
mission of the First Amended Complaint in late 2011, and (3) the fact Plain- 5
tiff regained possession of the missing DVD in February 2014. 6
V. DELAY, EXPENSE AND SPEEDY DETERMINATION 7
24. The Magistrate is in error when he states: 8
This action is over three years old. Granting leave to file 9
another amended complaint would essentially start the case 10
over, at least with respect to those defendants Plaintiff 11
seeks to add in his proposed Second Amended Complaint, 12
would add more delay and expense in reaching the merits 13
of Plaintiffs claims and is inconsistent with Rule 1, 14
Fed.R.Civ.P., (These rules . . . shall be construed and ad- 15
ministered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive de- 16
termination of every action.). (DOC 123, 5:1-9) 17
25. Plaintiff respectfully submits: the Fed.R.Civ.P. were written for holistic, not 18
capricious, application. 19
26. Delay and expense was the result of Defendants use of a legal tactic in- 20
tended to exhaust Plaintiff, create expense, delay the proceedings and defeat 21
Plaintiffs claim. (see section III above.) 22
27. The Magistrate (1) failed to implement Rule 16 within 120 days of service 23
of complaint, (2) denied Plaintiff procedural due process, (3) denied Plain- 24
tiff the discovery Plaintiff needed to prove his claim, (4) frustrated Plain- 25
tiffs right to sue his government, (5) created the very delay and expense 26
the Magistrate now uses as a basis to deny Plaintiff amendment of com- 27
plaint, and (6) violated our most sacred legal principle, as chiseled in stone 28
over the entrance of the U.S. Supreme Court: Equal Justice Under Law. 29


11

28. Delay cost Plaintiff dearly; Defendant Tucson City Officials, who created 1
the delay as a legal tactic while availing themselves to the benefits of a bot- 2
tomless public purse, paid nothing. 3
VI. RELATION BACK 4
29. Regarding relation back the Magistrate is in error when he states: 5
Most significantly, the allegations against these individu- 6
als do not relate back to conduct, transactions, or occur- 7
rences set forth in the original pleadings. (Doc 123, 6:1-10) 8
30. F.R.C.P. 15, in pertinent part, provides: 9
(c) RELATION BACK OF AMENDMENTS. 10
(1) When an Amendment Relates Back. An amendment to a 11
pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading 12
when: 13
(B) the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out 14
of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set outor at- 15
tempted to be set outin the original pleading. 16
31. Regarding conduct, transaction, or occurrence the First Amended Com- 17
plaint states: 18
On or about May 01, 2008 Defendant Robinson denied 19
Plaintiff right of entry into Armory Park, Tucson Arizona, to 20
speak in opposition to Pro Raza demonstrators who had 21
gathered there, Tucson City Open Border Policy and the Pol- 22
icy of the Mexican Government, even though Plaintiff 23
showed her the Mike Rankin Letter dated April 12, 2006 24
which stated, in sum and substance, that Exclusive Use Per- 25
mits may not be used to deny First Amendment Rights as per 26
Gathright v City of Portland, 439 F.3d 573 (9
th
Cir 2006). 27
On or about May 01, 2009 and May 01, 2010 Defendant 28
Robinson
13
again denied Plaintiff right of entry into Armory 29
Park, Tucson Arizona, to speak in opposition to Pro Raza 30

13
Plaintiff misidentified Defendant Azuelo as Robinson for the May 1, 2010 viola-
tion.
12

demonstrators who had gathered there, Tucson City Open 1
Border Policy and the Policy of the Mexican Government, 2
even though Plaintiff again showed her the Mike Rankin Let- 3
ter dated April 12, 2006 which stated, in sum and substance, 4
that Exclusive Use Permits may not be used to deny First 5
Amendment Rights as per Gathright v City of Portland, 439 6
F.3d 573 (9
th
Cir 2006). 7
On May 1, 2010, subsequent to Defendant Robinson pre- 8
venting his entry into Armory Park, Plaintiff moved across the 9
street and began speaking to onlookers who had gathered 10
there. However; an unidentified TPD officer
14
approached 11
Plaintiff and said, in sum and substance, if Plaintiff did not 12
move himself more than 1,000 feet away from Armory Park 13
he would be arrested. (DOC 6, 19:29-20:24) 14
32. The First Amended Complaint sufficiently notice pleads Defendants vi- 15
olation of Plaintiffs rights on May 1, 2010, as set forth above in paragraph 16
31. 17
33. The Second Amended Complaint newly pleads the conduct of those who 18
conspired to issue an Exclusive Use Permit knowing that case law ex- 19
pressly forbad such practice;
15
and instructed several TPD officers to vio- 20
late plaintiffs rights on May 1, 2010. 21
34. The law cannot rationally hold liable officers who followed unlawful direc- 22
tions given by their superiors to commit violations, and withhold liability 23
from the same superiors who issued the unlawful instructions. 24
35. Moreover; until Plaintiff was afforded partial discovery on March 20, 2014 25
Plaintiff was unaware of (1) Defendant Azuelos role, along with Defend- 26
ants Miranda
16
, Rankin, Judge and Grey and Ochoa, as a decision-maker 27

14
Plaintiff mistakenly pled 1 officer when there were 2.
15
Gathright v City of Portland, 439 F.3d 573 (9
th
Cir 2006)

16
Plaintiff contends Defendants Miranda, Rankin, Judge, and Ochoa, who, along with
Defendant Azuelo participated in the decision to issue the permit, were also put on
13

and planner of Defendants violations on May 1, 2010; (2) the identities 1
of Defendants Johnson and Wooldridge (previously pled as unidentified) 2
who violated Plaintiffs rights in Armory Park on May 1, 2010; (3) the 3
identity of Defendants Rozema and Stamatopoulous, commanders who is- 4
sued specific on the scene instructions to Defendants Azuelo, Johnson 5
and Wooldridge, and prior directions earlier that morning at command 6
and tactical briefings; (4) the identity of Exclusive Use Permit Holder 7
Defendant Paul Teitelbaum & Defendant May 1
st
Coalition, and Defendant 8
John Miles; (5) the identity of Defendant Lt. Paul Sayre who met with De- 9
fendant May 1
st
Coalition Organizers prior to May 1, 2010; and (6) the fact 10
that on the morning of May1, 2010 Defendant Officers had two meetings 11
where they received precise instructions from superior officers, whose iden- 12
tities are still undisclosed, on what methods to employ to keep Plaintiff out 13
of Armory Park on May 1, 2010, in violation of the law and Plaintiffs 14
rights, etc. 15
36. Prior to Initial Disclosures, Plaintiff had no way of knowing the true nature 16
and full extent of Azuelos actionable conduct, which pre-dates his exclu- 17
sion of Plaintiff from Armory Park on May 1, 2010, until Plaintiff saw 18
Azuelo (1) referenced as a decision-maker, along with Rankin, Miranda, 19
Judge, and Ochoa at the bottom of the Exclusive Use Permit, and, (2) 20
listed as a participant in the command and tactical briefings which took 21
place in the early morning hours of May 1, 2010. 22
37. Therefore: even if Azuelo had played no role whatsoever in excluding 23
Plaintiff from Armory Park on May 1, 2010, Plaintiff would have added 24

notice that Plaintiffs rights would be violated on May 1, 2010 when they received
Defendant Fred Grays April 26, 2010 letter (a.k.a. the Exclusive Use Permit) to
Defendant Teitelbaum.

14

him as a Defendant in the Second Amended Complaint for the role he 1
played as decision maker and planner to violate Plaintiffs rights. 2
VII. NOTICE 3
38. The Magistrate is in error when he states: 4
The Defendants named in Count One, Two, and Four of 5
the proposed Second Amended Complaint lacked notice, 6
there was no way they could have known that they would 7
be a party to this lawsuit. DOC 123, 6:1-10 8
39. The newly named Defendant Tucson City Officials had constructive notice 9
of this suit; they (1) share the same legal counsel (Defendant Rankin, Judge, 10
and the rest of the Civil Division of the Tucson City Attorney), (2) were 11
noticed recipients of the 2010 Exclusive Use Permit, (3) knew that the 12
law of Gathright expressly prohibited the use of exclusive use permits to 13
exclude of publics speakers from public parks, (4) are indemnified from risk 14
by Tucson City Policy, and (5) as a practical daily reality, are joined at the 15
hip with existing Defendants, including Defendants Miranda and Rankin. 16
40. The newly named Defendant Officers had constructive notice of this suit; 17
they (1) share common status as T.P.D. officers, (2) share the services of 18
the Tucson City Attorney who has employed and will continue to employ 19
the same legal strategy for the defense of one or all, (3) are Tucson City 20
employees, (4) are indemnified by the same Tucson City Policy which pro- 21
tects Tucson City Officials, and (5) are members of the small team which 22
controlled Armory Park on May 1, 2010. 23
41. Moreover; Plaintiff knows Defendant Sayre in particular. Since this suit was 24
filed Plaintiff and Defendant Sayre have shared several conversations re- 25
garding the events which took place in Armory Park on May 1, 2010. 26
VIII. MISTAKE 27
42. The Magistrate is in error when he states: 28
15

Plaintiff cannot show the new defendants knew or should 1
have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity 2
of the proper party, the action would have been brought 3
against the party Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(3)(C). 4
43. Plaintiff only pleads mistake as to the identity of Defendant Azuelo
17
and 5
the fact that two officers, (now identified as Wooldridge and Johnston) 6
not one, told Plaintiff on May 1, 2010 to move 1,000 feet away from Ar- 7
mory Park or face arrest. 8
44. These officers remained either misidentified or unidentified until Plain- 9
tiff compared their names in the recently disclosed Special Operations 10
Plan to the indistinct utterances on his DVD. 11
45. Moreover; if the Court had ordered a scheduling conference within 120 days 12
of service of complaint as required by Rule 16, Plaintiff would have ob- 13
tained the information he needed to amend complaint in 2012, independent 14
of the data found on Plaintiffs missing DVD which he was not obliged 15
to provide until Initial Disclosures were due. 16
46. Significantly; as for the other newly named defendants, Plaintiff only 17
learned of their conspiracy and other unlawful conduct, and learned their 18
identities, consequent to Defendants Initial Disclosures which Plaintiff re- 19
ceived on March 20, 2014. 20
SUMMARY 21
Plaintiff again respectfully submits: the F.R.C.P. were written for holistic, not 22
capricious, application on a random basis. 23
The Magistrate, by failing to implement Rule 16 within 120 days of service of 24
complaint, denied Plaintiff (1) procedural due process, (2) the discovery Plaintiff 25
needed to prove his claim, and (3) the right to the just, speedy, and inexpensive 26

17
Plaintiff mistakenly identified Robinson as the TPD Officer who denied Plaintiff
entry into Armory Park on May 1, 2010, when the evidence now reveals the offending
officer was Azuelo.

16

determination of his action; a delay for which Plaintiff paid dearly and Defend- 1
ants, who avail themselves to the bottomless public purse, paid nothing. 2
Moreover; the Magistrate himself helped Defendants create the very delay and 3
expense he now uses as a basis to recommend the dismissal of complaint. 4
CONCLUSION 5
The Magistrate has violated our most sacred legal principle, as chiseled in stone 6
over the entrance of the U.S. Supreme Court: Equal Justice Under Law. 7
The Magistrate committed additional error and may have engaged in miscon- 8
duct on March 6, 2014
18
when he suggested that Plaintiff, when amending his com- 9
plaint, ignore the high level Tucson City Officials who conspired and directed low 10
level TPD officers to violate the law of Gathright on May 1, 2010. 11
Moreover; the Magistrate may have engaged in other misconduct when he 12
warned Plaintiff not to exercise his procedural right to submit another Motion to 13
Amend Complaint, as such filings can only be viewed as intended to vex and 14
harass and will result in dismissal with prejudice. (DOC 123 4:1-5) 15
Since this case was filed in 2011 the Magistrate, in a raw exercise of judicial 16
power, has (1) parsed bits and pieces of the F.R.C.P., (2) created unnecessary delay 17
and expense, (3) forced Plaintiff to submit to wasteful pre-trial activities by re- 18
fusing to issue a Rule 16 Scheduling Order for three years, (4) only permitted dis- 19
covery to commence on March 7, 2014 and, (5) otherwise selectively applied the 20
F.R.C.P. to achieve a desired and predictable result; the depletion of Plaintiffs 21
energy, the evisceration of his complaint and the defeat of Plaintiffs case on the 22
basis too much time has passed. 23
Moreover; the Magistrate recommends the Court deny Plaintiff the opportunity 24
to amend complaint to overcome deficiency, a right set forth in Noll v Carlson, 25
because such amendment would vex and harass Defendants. (DOC 123, 4:1-4). 26

18
Plaintiff has ordered a transcript and will use the Magistrates comments to prove
additional error and bias on appeal.
17

Justice delayed is justice denied, and the Magistrate, who for more than two 1
years denied Plaintiff discovery and the express protections provided by the 2
F.R.C.P., substituted the rule of man for the rule of law which essentially 3
means: no justice at all, at least not for this pro-se plaintiff. 4
Plaintiff respectfully submits; justice for the pro-se litigant is only served when 5
the Rules of Civil Procedure are applied holistically and without bias, subterfuge, 6
or selective enforcement by the Court. 7
PRAYER 8
Plaintiff respectfully prays the Court to: 9
1. Reject the Magistrates Report in its entirety; 10
2. Permit Plaintiff the opportunity to submit a Third Amended Complaint, 11
as required by law; 12
3. Provide such other relief the Court deems proper. 13
14
RESPECTFULLY SUMBITTED this 19
th
Day of May 2014. 15
BY: 16
____________________________ 17
Roy Warden, In Forma Pauperis 18
19
20
Original and one copy filed with the Court on May 19, 2014. I hereby certify 21
that on May 19, 2014 I personally hand delivered the attached document, 22
The Affidavit of Jim Kay in Support, and the Affidavit of Roy Warden in 23
Support to the Office of the Tucson City Attorney, and served by email, on 24
the following: 25
26
Viola Romero-Wright 27
Principal Assistant Tucson City Attorney 28
Viola.romero@tucsonaz.gov 29
30
____________________________ 31
Roy Warden, In Forma Pauperis 32
33
18

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
EXHIBIT 1 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
19

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
ROY WARDEN,
Plaintiff, IN FORMA
PAUPERIS
Vs
RICHARD MIRANDA, individually and in his
official capacity as Assistant Tucson City Man-
ager; MICHAEL RANKIN, individually and his
official capacity as Tucson City Attorney; L.
JUDGE, individually and in his official capacity
as Assistant Tucson City Attorney; FRED
GREY, individually and in his official capacity
as Director of Tucson Parks and Recreation;
RENEE OCHOA, individually and in her offi-
cial capacity as Southwest District Administra-
tor of Tucson Parks and Recreation; TERRY
ROZEMA, individually and in his official ca-
pacity as AC of the Tucson Police Department;
STAMATOPOULOS, individually and in his
official capacity as Captain of the Tucson Police
Department; DAVID AZUELO, individually
and in his official capacity as Lieutenant of the
Tucson Police Department; PAUL SAYRE, in-
dividually and in his official capacity as Lieu-
tenant of the Tucson Police Department;
JOHNSON, individually and in his official ca-
pacity as Sergeant of the Tucson Police Depart-
ment; WOOLDRIDGE, individually and in his
official capacity as Sergeant of the Tucson Po-
lice Department; PAUL TEITELBAUM, Coor-
dinator for Tucson May 1
st
Coalition for Worker
and Immigrant Rights; JOHN MILES, Organ-
izer for the May 1
st
Coalition for Worker and
Immigrant Rights; TUCSON MAY 1
ST

COALTITION FOR WORKER AND IMMI-
GRANT RIGHTS; THE CITY OF TUCSON;
AND DOES 1-25,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV 11-0460 TUC DCB (BPV)


(EXHIBIT ONLY)

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
INJUNCTIVE & DECLARATORY RE-
LIEF, AND COMPENSATORY & EX-
EMPLARY DAMAGES FOR NEGLI-
GENT AND INTENTIONAL VIOLA-
TIONS OF TITLE 42 U.S.C. 1983 AND
TITLE 42 U.S.C. 1985


(Hon. Judge David C. Bury)
(Hon. Magistrate Bernardo P. Velasco)



20

COMES NOW the Plaintiff Roy Warden, with his Complaint for Injunctive 1
and Declaratory Relief, and Damages, against the Defendants, named and unnamed 2
above, and as grounds therefore alleges: 3
I. INTRODUCTION 4
1. This is an action pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 5
42 U.S.C. 1985 and 28 U.S.C. 1343, seeking redress for the negligent and 6
intentional deprivation of the Plaintiffs constitutional rights. Venue is proper 7
in the 9
th
District of Arizona, as all of the acts complained of occurred in Pima 8
County Arizona. 9
II. JURISDICTION 10
2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. 1343(a)(3) for 11
negligent and intentional violations of constitutional rights as provided by 42 12
U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 1985. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, de- 13
claratory relief and monetary damagesincluding exemplary damagesas 14
well as attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. 15
3. The Plaintiff seeks redress for violation of the Plaintiffs rights to speech, 16
press, petition and assembly under the First Amendment of the Constitution 17
of the United States, the Plaintiffs right to be free of illegal seizures under the 18
Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the Plaintiffs 19
right to be free from unlawful seizure and imprisonment as provided for by 20
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United 21
States, and the Plaintiffs right to due process of law as guaranteed by the 22
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. 23
III. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL 24
4. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff requests 25
a trial by jury. 26
IV. IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES 27
5. Plaintiff Roy Warden, writer and publisher of political newsletters Common 28
Sense II, CS II Press, Arizona Common Sense and Director of the Tucson 29
21

Weekly Public Forum, is a citizen of the United States and was a resident of 1
Pima County Arizona at all times relevant to this complaint. 2
6. Defendant Richard Miranda was employed by the City of Tucson, and acted 3
individually and in his official capacity as Assistant Tucson City Manager, 4
under color of state law, regulations, customs and policies at all times relevant 5
herein. Defendant Miranda is sued in his individual and official capacities. 6
7. Defendant Michael Rankin was employed by the City of Tucson, and acted 7
individually and in his official capacity as Tucson City Attorney, under color 8
of state law, regulations, customs and policies at all times relevant herein. De- 9
fendant Rankin is sued in his individual and official capacities. 10
8. Defendant L. Judge was employed by the City of Tucson, and acted individu- 11
ally and in his official capacity as Assistant Tucson City Attorney, under color 12
of state law, regulations, customs and policies at all times relevant herein. De- 13
fendant Judge is sued in his individual and official capacities. 14
9. Defendant Fred Grey was employed by the City of Tucson, and acted individ- 15
ually and in his official capacity as Director of Tucson Parks and Recreation, 16
under color of state law, regulations, customs and policies at all times relevant 17
herein. Defendant Grey is sued in his individual and official capacities. 18
10. Defendant Renee Ochoa was employed by the City of Tucson, and acted in- 19
dividually and in her official capacity as Southwest District Administrator of 20
Tucson Parks and Recreation, under color of state law, regulations, customs 21
and policies at all times relevant herein. Defendant Ochoa is sued in her indi- 22
vidual and official capacities. 23
11. Defendant Terry Rozema was employed by the City of Tucson, and acted in- 24
dividually and in his official capacity as AC of the Tucson Police Department, 25
under color of state law, regulations, customs and policies at all times relevant 26
herein. Defendant Rozema is sued in his individual and official capacities. 27
22

12. Defendant Stamatopoulos was employed by the City of Tucson, and acted in- 1
dividually and in his official capacity as Captain of the Tucson Police Depart- 2
ment, under color of state law, regulations, customs and policies at all times 3
relevant herein. Defendant Stamatopoulos is sued in his individual and official 4
capacities. 5
13. Defendant David Azuelo was employed by the City of Tucson, and acted in- 6
dividually and in his official capacity as Lieutenant of the Tucson Police De- 7
partment, under color of state law, regulations, customs and policies at all 8
times relevant herein. Defendant Azuelo is sued in his individual and official 9
capacities. 10
14. Defendant Paul Sayre was employed by the City of Tucson, and acted indi- 11
vidually and in his official capacity as Lieutenant of the Tucson Police De- 12
partment, under color of state law, regulations, customs and policies at all 13
times relevant herein. Defendant Sayre is sued in his individual and official 14
capacities. 15
15. Defendant Johnson was employed by the City of Tucson, and acted individu- 16
ally and in his official capacity as Sergeant of the Tucson Police Department, 17
under color of state law, regulations, customs and policies at all times relevant 18
herein. Defendant Johnson is sued in his individual and official capacities. 19
16. Defendant Wooldridge was employed by the City of Tucson, and acted indi- 20
vidually and in his official capacity as Sergeant of the Tucson Police Depart- 21
ment, under color of state law, regulations, customs and policies at all times 22
relevant herein. Defendant Wooldridge is sued in his individual and official 23
capacities. 24
17. Defendant Paul Teitelbaum was employed by the Tucson May 1
st
Coalition 25
for Worker and Immigrant Rights, and acted individually, in his official ca- 26
pacity as Coordinator for the Tucson May 1
st
Coalition for Worker and Immi- 27
grant Rights, as an agent of the state under the direction or control of named 28
23

or unnamed Defendants, and in concert with Defendant Azuelo and other Tuc- 1
son Officials and Employees, under color of state law, regulations, customs 2
and policies at all times relevant herein. Defendant Teitelbaum is sued in his 3
individual and official capacities. 4
18. Defendant John Miles was employed by the Tucson May 1
st
Coalition for 5
Worker and Immigrant Rights, and acted individually, in his official capacity 6
as Organizer for the Tucson May 1
st
Coalition for Worker and Immigrant 7
Rights, as an agent of the state under the direction or control of named or 8
unnamed Defendants, and in concert with Defendant Azuelo and other Tucson 9
Officials and Employees, under color of state law, regulations, customs and 10
policies at all times relevant herein. Defendant Miles is sued in his individual 11
and official capacities. 12
19. Defendant Tucson May 1
st
Coalition for Worker and Immigrant Rights, a po- 13
litical organization located in Tucson Arizona, acted as an agent of the state 14
under the direction or control of named or unnamed Defendants, and in con- 15
cert with Defendant Azuelo and other Tucson Officials and Employees, under 16
color of state law, regulations, customs and policies at all times relevant 17
herein. 18
20. Defendant City of Tucson, a municipal corporation, is a unit of local govern- 19
ment organized under the laws of the State of Arizona. Municipalities may 20
be sued for constitutional deprivations visited pursuant to governmental cus- 21
tom even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the 22
bodys official decision-making channels. Monell v. Department of Social 23
Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690, 691 (1978). 24
21. Defendant Does 1 25 are (1) individuals or members of various political or- 25
ganizations who acted as agents of the state under the direction or control of, 26
or in concert with, named or unnamed Defendants, and (2) Pima County or 27
Tucson City employees, including employees of the Tucson Police Depart- 28
ment, who acted individually and at the direction of their superiors, within 29
24

their enforcement, administrative and executive capacities, under color of 1
state law, regulations, customs and policies at all times relevant herein. Does 2
125 are sued in their individual and official capacities. 3
22. Defendant City of Tucson was served with a Notice of Claim, pursuant to 4
A.R.S. 12-821.01, that included an administrative demand. Defendant City 5
of Tucson did not respond to the administrative demand. 6
V. FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS 7
23. On April 2, 2010 Defendant Paul Teitelbaum, Coordinator for Defendant 8
Tucson May 1
st
Coalition for Worker and Immigrant Rights, sent a letter to 9
Defendant Reenie Ochoa, Southwest District Director Tucson Parks and Rec- 10
reation, requesting exclusive use of Armory Park on May 1, 2010. 11
24. Defendant Teitelbaum stated: Our groups request is based primarily on pub- 12
lic safety concerns(W)e have received an explicit threat from a local resi- 13
dent, Mr. Roy Warden. 14
25. On top of the page is the following handwritten notation: 4/6/10 OK to pro- 15
cess for attorney approval on April 1, 2010. Reenie Ochoa. 16
26. Sometime prior to making the notation, or shortly thereafter, Defendant Ochoa 17
communicated with Defendants Miranda, Judge, Rankin, Grey, and other De- 18
fendants whose identities are unknown, and came to an agreement to deny 19
Plaintiff entry into Armory Park on May 1, 2010, even though all Defendants 20
knew such action would violate Plaintiffs First Amendment rights. 21
27. By letter dated April 26, 2010 Defendant Fred Gray granted Defendant Teitel- 22
baum exclusive use of Armory Park on May 1, 2010 and instructed Defend- 23
ant Teitelbaum how to deny access to unwanted entrants, even though De- 24
fendant Gray knew the granting of such exclusive use permits authorizing 25
permit holders to deny the public access to public parks, on the basis of view- 26
point, was unlawful as per the law set forth in Gathright. 27
25

28. Copies of Defendant Grays April 26, 2010 letter were sent to Defendants Mi- 1
randa, Rankin, Judge, Ochoa and Azuelo, putting them on notice that a con- 2
stitutional violation was about to occur. 3
29. Sometime prior to the May 1, 2010 Rally in Armory Park Defendant Sayre, 4
and other Tucson City and Pima County officials and employees whose iden- 5
tities are unknown, met with Defendants Teitelbaum, Miles, and other activ- 6
ists whose identities are unknown, and came to an agreement to deny Plaintiff 7
entry into Armory Park on May 1, 2010 in violation of Plaintiffs rights under 8
the First Amendment. 9
30. Sometime prior to the May 1, 2010 Rally in Armory Park Defendants Mi- 10
randa, Rankin, Judge, Azuelo, and other Defendants whose identities are un- 11
known, communicated with each other and agreed to employ a Tucson Court 12
Order dated March 16, 2009 as an additional basis to deny Plaintiff exercise 13
of his First Amendment rights on May 1, 2010, even though Defendants knew 14
the underlying case, CR 7030208, was under review by the Arizona Supreme 15
Court and the order was not in effect. 16
31. Sometime just prior to the May 1, 2010 Rally in Armory Park Defendants 17
Stamatopoulos, Rozema, Azuelo and Sayre attended a command briefing 18
with other high ranking Tucson Police Officials, whose identities are un- 19
known, and formulated a plan to violate Plaintiffs First Amendment rights 20
later that day in Armory Park. 21
32. Immediately subsequent to the command briefing Defendants Azuelo, 22
Wooldridge and Johnson attended a tactical briefing conducted by high 23
ranking Tucson Police Officials, whose identities are unknown, and received 24
instructions on how to keep Plaintiff out of Armory Park later that day, in 25
violation of Plaintiffs First Amendment rights. 26
33. On May 1, 2010 Defendant Azuelo, at the request of exclusive use permit 27
holder Defendant Teitelbaum, told Plaintiff he would be arrested if he did not 28
move 1,000 feet away from Armory Park, citing both the provisions of the 29
26

exclusive use permit and a court order issued by Tucson Municipal Court 1
Judge Eugene Hays as authority for his order, even though no such court order 2
was then in effect. 3
34. Plaintiff moved to the western side of South Sixth Avenue and positioned 4
himself at the corner of south Sixth Avenue and East 13
th
Street to view the 5
proceedings; however Plaintiff was compelled to depart the May 1, 2010 rally 6
area altogether when Defendants Wooldridge and Johnson threatened him 7
with arrest if he did not move 1,000 feet away from Armory Park. 8
VI. COUNT ONE: VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH 9
35. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in para- 10
graphs 1-143 as though fully set forth herein. 11
36. The Arizona Supreme Court has stated: 12
Any question regarding infringement of First Amendment rights is of 13
the utmost gravity and importance, for it goes to the heart of the natural 14
rights of citizens to impart and acquire information which is necessary 15
for the well being of a free society. Since an informed public is the most 16
important of all restraints upon misgovernment, (the government may 17
not take) anyaction which might prevent free and general discussion 18
of public matters as seems essential to prepare the people for an intel- 19
ligent exercise of their rights as citizens. New Times Inc. v Arizona 20
Board of Regents, 110 Ariz. 367, 519 P.2d 169 (1974) 21
22
37. Plaintiff alleges that the following Defendants violated Plaintiff rights under 23
the First Amendment as set forth below: 24
A. Defendant Azuelo when he threatened Plaintiff with arrest on May 1, 2010 25
if he did not move 1,000 feet away from Armory Park; 26
B. Defendants Wooldridge and Johnson when they threatened Plaintiff with 27
arrest on May 1, 2010 if he did not move 1,000 feet away from Armory 28
Park; 29
C. Defendant Grey when he issued the exclusive permit letter dated April 30
26, 2010 and instructed Defendant Teitelbaum how to exclude Plaintiff 31
from Armory Park on May 1, 2010, and 32
27

D. Defendants Miranda, Rankin, Judge, and Azuelo when they failed to take 1
action to protect Plaintiffs rights after being put on notice by Defendant 2
Greys letter dated April 26, 2010 that Plaintiffs rights would be violated 3
on May 1, 2010. 4
38. The actions taken by Defendants Miranda, Rankin, Judge, Grey, Azuelo, John- 5
son and Wooldridge, and others who assisted named Defendants whose iden- 6
tities are unknown, were the proximate cause of harm done to Plaintiff. 7
VII. COUNT TWO: FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION 8
39. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in para- 9
graphs 1-147 as though fully set forth herein. 10
40. Plaintiff alleges that the following Defendants engaged in acts of first amend- 11
ment retaliation as set forth below: 12
A. Defendants Miranda, Rankin, Judge, Grey, Ochoa, and other Tucson City and 13
Pima County policy makers whose identities are unknown, when they violated 14
Plaintiffs rights in retaliation for Plaintiff exposing Defendant City of Tucson 15
engagement in Open Border Policy. 16
41. The actions taken by Defendants Miranda, Rankin, Judge, Grey, Ochoa, and 17
other Tucson City and Pima County policy makers whose identities are un- 18
known, were the proximate cause of harm done to Plaintiff. 19
IX. COUNT FOUR: CONSPIRACY 20
42. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in para- 21
graphs 1-155 as though fully set forth herein. 22
43. Plaintiff alleges that the following Defendants met, came to an agreement and 23
acted in concert for the purpose of denying Plaintiff his rights under the First 24
Amendment as set forth below: 25
A. Defendant Sayre and other Tucson City and Pima County officials, whose 26
identities are unknown, when they met with Defendants Teitelbaum, Miles, 27
and other members of Tucson May 1
st
Coalition for Worker and Immigrant 28
28

Rights whose identities are unknown, and formulated a plan to deny Plaintiff 1
entry into Armory Park on May 1, 2010; 2
B. Defendant Ochoa when she consulted with Defendants Miranda, Rankin, 3
Judge, Grey, and others whose identities are unknown, and came to a decision 4
to issue a permit for exclusive use of Armory Park on May 1, 2010, knowing 5
that it was unlawful to authorize permit holders to exclude public speakers 6
from public parks; 7
C. Defendants Miranda, Rankin, Judge, Azuelo and other Defendants whose 8
identities are unknown, when they met, formulated a plan and decided to em- 9
ploy a Tucson Court Order dated March 16, 2009 as an additional basis to 10
deny Plaintiff exercise of his First Amendment rights on May 1, 2010, even 11
though Defendants knew the underlying case, CR 7030208, was under review 12
by the Arizona Supreme Court and the order was not in effect; 13
D. Defendant Grey when he consulted with Defendants Rankin, Miranda, Ochoa, 14
Judge, Azuelo, and others whose identities are unknown, and formulated a 15
plan to grant exclusive use of Armory Park on May 1, 2010 and instruct 16
Defendant Teitelbaum how to deny Plaintiff entry into Armory Park on May 17
1, 2010 even though Defendants knew such action would violate Plaintiffs 18
rights and the law regarding exclusive use permits set forth by Gathright; 19
E. Defendants Rozema, Stamatopoulos, Azuelo, Sayre, and others whose identi- 20
ties are unknown, when they met on the morning of May 1, 2010 at a com- 21
mand briefing with other high level TPD and Tucson City Defendants, whose 22
identities are unknown, and agreed to implement a plan to violate Plaintiffs 23
rights later that day in Armory Park, and 24
F. Defendants Wooldridge and Johnson, and others whose identities are un- 25
known, when they met on the morning of May 1, 2010 at a tactical briefing 26
with other high level TPD and Tucson City Defendants, whose identities are 27
unknown, and agreed to implement a plan to violate Plaintiffs rights later that 28
day in Armory Park. 29
29

44. The actions taken by Defendants Miranda, Rankin, Judge, Grey, Ochoa, Ro- 1
zema, Stamatopoulos, Azuelo, Sayre, Johnson, Wooldridge, Teitelbaum, 2
Miles, the Tucson May 1
st
Coalition for Worker Rights, and others whose 3
identities are unknown who advised and assisted named Defendants, were the 4
proximate cause of harm done to Plaintiff. 5
XII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 6
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court: 7
A) Order Defendant Tucson City to provide all enforcement level employees 8
with mandatory training regarding all aspects of their duty to protect the con- 9
stitutional rights of the people, independent from the directions of their supe- 10
riors; 11
B) Upon submission, to issue a preliminary injunction enjoining Tucson City Po- 12
lice Officers from enforcing any court order, including injunctions and orders 13
setting forth the conditions of release from custody, which, as an unlawful act 14
of prior restraint, prohibits pure political speech; 15
C) Upon submission, to issue a preliminary injunction enjoining the Tucson City 16
Council from employing Tucson City Code Section 21-4(a) (b)(6), or any 17
code section granting exclusive use permit holders the authority to exclude 18
public speakers from a public park; 19
D) Award Plaintiff compensatory damages in an amount deemed fair, just and 20
reasonable, for (1) the harm and violation of rights Plaintiff has suffered as set 21
forth above, (2) the emotional distress Plaintiff has suffered by his loss of 22
rights and reputation, and (3) the negligent and intentional deprivation of 23
Plaintiffs civil rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amend- 24
ments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. 1983, and 42 U.S.C. 25
1985; 26
30

E) Award Plaintiff exemplary damages in the amount sufficient to deter Defend- 1
ants and other government officials from abusing the prerogatives of their 2
power and acting in a similar malicious and unlawful manner; 3
F) Award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4
1988, and 5
G) Grant such additional relief as the Court deems just and proper. 6
7
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this day of 2014. 8
9
BY: 10
________________________________ 11
Roy Warden, In Forma Pauperis 12
13
14
15