Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
3
ROY WARDEN,
4
Plaintiff,
5
vs.
6
BOB WALKUP, et al.,
7
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CV 11-460-TUC-DCB
March 6, 2014
Tucson, Arizona
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
APPEARANCES
16
17
18
19
20
PROCEEDINGS WERE DIGITALLY RECORDED
21
22
23
24
25
PROCEEDINGS
of Tucson defendants.
10
11
the caption to reflect dismissal of named party. It's not Judge Bury's
12
practice to do that.
13
14
15
compelling reason. And I suggest you take that to him unless you have
16
it now.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
parties who have no claims pending, I think the City can amend the --
25
8
9
10
11
12
13
requirements under Rule 16, we jumped ahead for two years and
14
15
16
17
18
defendants -THE COURT: Let me ask you this. All I'm saying right
19
20
now --
21
22
23
24
25
opportunity to amend.
8
9
10
11
12
did something.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
way.
Now, you have -- I've already granted you in forma
pauperis status and you filed it again.
MR. WARDEN: Only, Judge, because the rules require
21
22
might affect that status so I did. I don't know of any other way to
23
24
25
up hiring a lawyer, there might be some inquiry about how you can hire
7
8
9
10
11
judgment in which documents for the first time were disclosed to me.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
understand that at the present time there's only one claim against one
20
21
22
accurate except the motion to amend will set forth the additional
23
24
May 1, 2010. And that is the focal issue in the case. And the use of
25
the exclusive use permit to deny me entry is also a focal point. And I
2
3
10
11
12
party.
MR. WARDEN: For clarification would that be the
13
unidentified officer who denied me entry into Armory Park on that day?
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Honor? I'm just simply not familiar with the process and I will diligently
23
get on it tomorrow.
24
25
8
9
10
Honor?
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
MS. ROMERO-WRIGHT: On the remaining allegation,
11
Mr. Warden keeps saying the person who denied him entry into Armory
12
Park, but the remaining charge does not say that he denied -- this
13
14
officer threatened plaintiff with arrest if he did not move more than a
15
thousand feet away from Armory Park. I just wanted to clarify that.
16
17
you, Mr. Warden, that you can substitute a name. Anything else you
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
understand the nuance between what Your Honor has just said.
THE COURT: Here's what the nuance is. I'm not going
to be explaining this to you after today's hearing.
The City contends that whatever you say happened
involved a threat to arrest you. Okay. So if you say anything else in
your papers that you submit in 14 days, they'll be filed, but they --
3
4
John Doe orange, that's great. Let's start over. Okay. But if you file
something that names somebody else and you request some other
objecting.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
new parties unless you're granted leave to amend the complaint and to
17
18
19
20
others, TPD officers and members of the public, who engaged in that
21
22
23
complaint is correct.
24
25
But be that as it may, you think one thing, I'm saying a different thing,
it exists today.
8
9
10
because I think I'm sure you feel you know what the law is. What you
11
need to do is find something that will inform you about how things are
12
13
14
15
16
every trade or practice has a way of doing things. And they are not
17
18
ingredients for baking a cake. They list them out. But they don't
19
necessarily tell you how to mix them, when to mix them, things like
20
that.
21
22
the rules are, figure out what the law is, and then read something that
23
24
25
10
the rules. And that's exactly the nature of this complaint against
Tucson city officials. That they engaged in a custom and practice not
to read, but other than to read the rules and the case law supporting
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
to discuss?
MS. ROMERO-WRIGHT: I don't believe so, Your Honor,
20
21
22
no.
MR. WARDEN: Other than I think both of these reports
23
there's a lot of, you know, things we agreed on. But I know exactly
24
25
11
short discovery time and then allowing defendants to eat that up with
dispositive motions and claims of privilege simply means I'm not having
discovery at all. To that I object and I think I've set it forth clearly in
try not to change deadlines, but I can. But I'm going to have to find
10
11
12
13
cooperating.
MR. WARDEN: I understand that and I will address that
14
15
16
17
about me which I will refute with this motion for sanctions because I
18
19
20
21
22
23
now.
24
25
12
don't we hold in abeyance motions for sanctions and things like that.
Why don't we let bygones be bygones. We'll start out with a clean
slate. And then if it's necessary to call each other names later, we'll do
it.
8
9
10
11
12
13
that, Your Honor, is that he's going to go beyond 2010 which is the
14
15
violation of his rights. And he's got numerous cases already previously
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
Mike Rankin's letter dated April 12, 2006, in which he agreed, "We
can't keep him out of Armory Park because of a law set forth in
(unintelligible)." Yet after he wrote that letter, that's exactly what they
did.
So that goes to the heart of the responsibility for Tucson
5
6
cause of action for May 1st. That evidence may or may not be
10
admissible.
11
12
13
prove that don't have to go into the complaint. In other words, rather
14
than muddy up the complaint with things that may be past the statute
15
16
we're going to concentrate on this claim, treat what you would like to
17
18
evidence to prove the allegation. And I say that without telling you it is
19
or is not admissible.
MR. WARDEN: Your Honor, I agree with that. I think
20
21
22
actions that fall outside the statute of limitations may be pled for the
23
24
city officials.
25
14
everything they did. But to the extent that they have engaged in this
practice, and even though these things fall outside the statute of
further my claim.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
CERTIFICATE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25