Second Amended Complaint

Case 4:13-cv-00283-DCB-BPV Document 59 Filed 04/29/17 Page 1 of 20
Roy Warden, Publisher

Arizona Common Sense
6502 E. Golf Links Road #129
Tucson Arizona 85730
roywarden@hotmail.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
ROY WARDEN, Case No. CIV 13-283 TUC DCB (BPV)
Plaintiff, In Pro Se
Vs SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

FOR INJUNCTIVE & DECLARATORY
RELIEF, AND DAMAGES, FOR NEG-
BOB WALKUP, individually LIGENT AND INTENTIONAL VIOLA-
and in his official capacity TIONS OF TITLE 42 U.S.C. § 1983
as Tucson City Mayor; AND TITLE 42 U.S.C. §1985
STEVE KOZACHIK, indi-
vidually and in his official
capacity as Tucson City
Councilman; RICHARD THE HON. DAVID CHARLES BURY
MIRANDA, individually and
in his official capacity as
Tucson City Manager; MIKE
RANKIN, individually and in
his official capacity as Tuc-
son City Attorney; ANTO-
NIO RIOJAS, individually
and in his official capacity
as Tucson City Employee;
ROBERTO VILLASENOR,
individually and in his offi-
cial capacity as Chief of the
Tucson Police Department;
JEFFREY COUCH, individ-
ually and in his official ca-
pacity as Officer of the Tuc-
son Police Department;
“UNIDENTIFIED OFFICER,”
individually and in his offi-
cial capacity as Officer of
the Tucson Police Depart-
ment; THE CITY OF TUC-
SON; and DOES 1-100,
Defendants.
1
1 COMES NOW the Plaintiff Roy Warden, as per order of the

2 Court, with his 2nd Amended Complaint (consolidated) for In-
3 junctive and Declaratory Relief, and Damages, against the De-
4 fendants, named and unnamed above, and as grounds there-
5 fore alleges:
6 I. INTRODUCTION
7 1. This is an action pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of

8 1871, 42 U.S.C. §1983, 42 U.S.C. §1985 and 28 U.S.C.
9 § 1343, seeking redress for the negligent and inten-
10 tional deprivation of the Plaintiff’s constitutional
11 rights. Venue is proper in the 9th District of Arizona, as
12 all of the acts complained of occurred in Pima County
13 Arizona.
14 II. JURISDICTION
15 2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28
16 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) for negligent and intentional viola-
17 tions of constitutional rights as provided by 42 U.S.C.
18 §1983 and 42 U.S.C. §1985. The Plaintiff seeks in-
19 junctive relief, declaratory relief and monetary damag-
20 es—including exemplary damages—as well as attorney
21 fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.
22 3. The Plaintiff seeks redress for violation of the Plaintiff’s
23 rights to speech, press, petition and assembly under
24 the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United
25 States, the Plaintiff’s right to be free of illegal seizures
26 under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of
27 the United States, the Plaintiff’s right to be free from
2
1 unlawful seizure, malicious prosecution and impris-

2 onment as provided for by the Fourth and Fourteenth
3 Amendments of the Constitution of the United States,
4 and the Plaintiff’s right to due process of law as guar-
5 anteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of
6 the Constitution of the United States.
7 III. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
8 4. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-

9 cedure, Plaintiff requests a trial by jury.
10 IV. IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES
11 5. Plaintiff Roy Warden, community activist, writer and

12 publisher of political newsletters Common Sense II, CS
13 II Press, Arizona Common Sense and Director of the
14 Tucson Weekly Public Forum, is a citizen of the United
15 States and was a resident of Pima County Arizona at
16 all times relevant to this complaint.
17 6. Defendant Bob Walkup was employed by the City of
18 Tucson, and acted individually and in his official ca-
19 pacity as Tucson City Mayor, under color of state law,
20 regulations, customs and policies at all times relevant
21 herein. Defendant Walkup is sued in his individual
22 and official capacities.
23 7. Defendant Steve Kozachik is employed by the City of
25 pacity as Councilman for the City of Tucson, under
26 color of state law, regulations, customs and policies at
3
1 all times relevant herein. Defendant Kozachik is sued

2 in his individual and official capacities.
3 8. Defendant Richard Miranda was employed by the City
4 of Tucson, and acted individually and in his official
5 capacity as Tucson City Manager, under color of state
6 law, regulations, customs and policies at all times rel-
7 evant herein. Defendant Miranda is sued in his indi-
8 vidual and official capacities.
9 9. Defendant Mike Rankin is employed by the City of
11 pacity as Tucson City Attorney, under color of state
13 evant herein. Defendant Rankin is sued in his individ-
14 ual and official capacities.
15 10. Defendant Antonio Riojas is employed by the City of
17 pacity as Tucson City Employee, under color of state
19 evant herein. Defendant Riojas is sued in his individu-
20 al and official capacities.
21 11. Defendant Roberto Villaseñor was employed by the
22 City of Tucson, and acted individually and in his offi-
23 cial capacity as Chief of the Tucson Police Department,
24 under color of state law, regulations, customs and pol-
25 icies at all times relevant herein. Defendant Villaseñor
26 is sued in his individual and official capacities.
27 12. Defendant Officer Jeffrey Couch was employed by the
4
1 cial capacity as Tucson City Police Officer, under color

2 of state law, regulations, customs and policies at all
3 times relevant herein. Defendant Couch is sued in his
4 individual and official capacities.
5 13. Defendant “Unidentified Officer” is employed by the
7 cial capacity as Tucson City Police Officer, under color
8 of state law, regulations, customs and policies at all
9 times relevant herein. Defendant “Unidentified Officer”
10 is sued in his individual and official capacities.
11 14. Defendant City of Tucson, a municipal corporation, is
12 a unit of local government organized under the laws of
13 the State of Arizona. Municipalities “…may be sued for
14 constitutional deprivations visited pursuant to gov-
15 ernmental ‘custom’ even though such a custom has
16 not received formal approval through the body’s official
17 decision-making channels.” Monell v. Department of
18 Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690, 691 (1978)
19 15. Defendant Does 1-100 are (1) individuals or members
20 of various political organizations who acted individual-
21 ly or as agents of the state, under the direction or con-
22 trol of, or acted in concert with, named or unnamed
23 Defendants, to deprive Plaintiff of rights secured by the
24 First Amendment, and (2) Tucson City employees, in-
25 cluding councilpersons, their staffs, and employees of
26 the Tucson Police Department, who acted individually,
27 and at the direction of their superiors, within their en-
28 forcement, administrative and executive capacities,
5
1 under color of state law, regulations, customs and pol-

2 icies at all times relevant herein. Does 1-100 are sued
3 in their individual and official capacities.
4 V. FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS
5 16. Plaintiff is an unpaid political activist working on be-

6 half of the people of Pima County, the publisher of
7 Common Sense II, CSII Press, Arizona Common Sense
8 and the Director of the Tucson Weekly Public Forum.
9 17. Plaintiff has spent the last 12 years investigating alle-
10 gations of malfeasance within the legal and political
11 institutions of Pima County, including the malfeasance
12 of Tucson City Officials who have used their public of-
13 fices to (1) aid and abet, entice and invite, and other-
14 wise to encourage the unlawful entry of impoverished
15 Mexican citizens to supply local contractors with low
16 cost labor, (2) advance the policy of the Mexican Gov-
17 ernment to exclude their poor so they may come to
18 America to earn and send home remittances, and (3)
19 employ Tucson City Administrators, and staff, on the
20 basis of cronyism and not on the basis of their fitness
21 to hold public office.
22 18. On or about January 11, 2011, during the U.S. Con-
23 ference of Mayors in Washington D.C., Defendant
24 Walkup, invoking the name of Congresswoman Gabriel
25 Giffords, announced what he called a “Civility Accord.”
26 19. On September 07, 2011, during “Call to the Audience,”
27 Plaintiff addressed the Mayor and Council regarding a
6
1 2006 federal trial and jury award of 2.9 million dollars

2 in damages to Plaintiffs Gilmartin and Harris (CV 00-
3 352- TUC FRZ) finding Defendant Miranda and other
4 Tucson City Officials had conspired to engage in First
5 Amendment retaliatory acts, and had committed acts
6 “so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree
7 as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to
8 be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a
9 civilized community.1”
10 20. Additionally; on or about September 07, 2011 Petition-
11 er further informed Tucson Public Officials that Tuc-
12 son City Attorney Mike Rankin had unlawfully used
13 approximately eight hundred thousand dollars of pub-
14 lic funds to satisfy a portion of the punitive damage
15 judgment against Defendant Richard Miranda and
16 other Tucson City Officials in the Gilmartin case.
17 21. Subsequent to Plaintiff’s address, Defendant Kozachik
18 issued stern words intended to (1) retaliate for Plain-
19 tiff’s exposure of Tucson City Open Border Policy and
20 the unlawful acts committed by Defendants Miranda
21 and Rankin, (2) humiliate and embarrass Plaintiff and
22 hold him up to public ridicule, and (3) deter Plaintiff
23 and others from the free exercise of rights secured by
24 the First Amendment.
25 22. Subsequent to the December 07, 2011 meeting of the
26 Mayor and Council, Defendant Riojas, acting in his
1 Arizona standard for assessing punitive damages.
7
1 capacity as Tucson City Employee, provided advice to

2 Defendants on “how to” employ “The Rule” to deter
3 Plaintiff from future address to the Mayor and Council.
4 23. Sometime between September 07, 2011 and Septem-
5 ber 13, 2011, Defendants Kozachik and Walkup com-
6 municated with Defendants Rankin, Riojas and Mi-
7 randa, and others whose identities are unknown, and
8 came to an agreement to unlawfully2 arrest Plaintiff
9 should Plaintiff continue to address the Mayor and
10 Council regarding the issue of cronyism, the Gil-
11 martin trial and damage award, and Defendant Ran-
12 kin’s unlawful use of $800,000 of public money to sat-
13 isfy a portion of the Gilmartin Judgment.
14 24. During the December 13, 2011 Tucson Mayor and City
15 Council Meeting, attended by Defendant Riojas3, De-
16 fendant Walkup referenced the “Civility Accord” and
17 stated, “it’s time for us to start treating each other with
18 dignity and respect and understanding and decorum.”
19 25. Thereupon Defendant Walkup directed Defendant
20 Tucson City Attorney Mike Rankin to read a “State-
21 ment of Decorum,” (aka “The Rule”) which Defendant
22 Rankin did, as follows:
2 All Defendants knew that the policy Tucson City Officials

employed to regulate speech before the Mayor and Council
was unconstitutional.
3 Defendant Riojas attended to observe Plaintiff and to advise

the Mayor and Council accordingly.
8
1 “Citizens attending meetings shall observe rules

2 of propriety, decorum, and good conduct. Any
3 person making personal, impertinent or slander-
4 ous remarks, or becomes boisterous while ad-
5 dressing the governing body, may be removed by
6 the Sgt. at Arms as directed by the Chairman.”
7
8 26. Subsequently; on September 13, 2011, during Plain-
9 tiff’s public address to the Mayor and Council, Defend-
10 ant Walkup, acting on advice and directions provided
11 him by Defendants Kozachik, Rankin, Riojas, Miranda
12 and others whose identities are presently unknown,
13 directed Defendant Officer Couch and the “Unidenti-
14 fied Officer” to arrest Plaintiff when he began to recite
15 the requisite Arizona standards for awarding punitive
16 damages as they applied to Defendant Miranda in the
17 2006 Gilmartin case.
18 27. Immediately thereafter Defendants Couch and the
19 “Unidentified Officer,” acting without probable cause to
20 believe an offense had been committed, arrested Plain-
21 tiff, took Plaintiff into custody, and removed him from
22 the Mayor and Council Chambers.
23 28. Outside Defendant Couch confronted Plaintiff and told
24 him: “Get out of here! You’re just a troublemaker!”
25 29. Subsequently; Councilwoman Karen Uhlich character-
26 ized Plaintiff’s comments as “bullying and threaten-
27 ing,” and Defendant Kozachik referred to Plaintiff’s
28 comments as “offensive and racist attacks.”
29 30. On September 20, 2011 the Mayor and City Council
30 held a public “study session” in which they addressed
9
1 the particulars of “The Rule.” Significantly; both Mayor

2 and Council were advised as to the legality of “The
3 Rule” by Defendant Tucson City Attorney Mike Rankin.
4 31. Subsequently; on October 12, 2011 Plaintiff filed a
5 Special Action in Pima County Superior Court, action
6 number C20117276, challenging “The Rule” as vague
7 and overbroad.
8 32. On March 22, 2012, upon Tucson City Defendants’
9 misrepresentation they were changing “The Rule,” the
10 Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Special Action as “moot.”
11 33. The new “Rule,” which shares the same constitutional
12 infirmities of vagueness and overbreadth as the old,
13 provides further proof of the “custom and practice” of
14 Tucson City Defendants to misrepresent the facts and
15 to defy4 the lawful authority of the Court.
16 VI. COUNT ONE: VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH
17 34. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allega-

18 tion contained in paragraphs 1-33 as though fully set
19 forth herein.
20 35. The Arizona Supreme Court has stated:
21 “Any question regarding infringement of First
22 Amendment rights is of the utmost gravity and
23 importance, for it goes to the heart of the natural
24 rights of citizens to impart and acquire infor-
25 mation which is necessary for the well being of a
4 Such as defying the will of the Gilmartin jury by promoting

Defendant Miranda who had cost Tucson taxpayers two mil-
lion dollars for “outrageous” conduct.
10
1 free society. Since an informed public is the most

2 important of all restraints upon misgovernment,
3 (the government may not take) any… action which
4 might prevent free and general discussion of pub-
5 lic matters as seems essential to prepare the peo-
6 ple for an intelligent exercise of their rights as citi-
7 zens.” New Times Inc. v Arizona Board of Regents,
8 110 Ariz. 367, 519 P.2d 169 (1974)
9
10 36. Plaintiff alleges that the following Defendants violated
11 Plaintiffs right to freedom of speech, as set forth below:
12 a) Defendant Kozachik on or about September 07,
13 2013 when he spoke stern words to deter Plaintiff
14 from future address to the Mayor ad Council;
15 b) Defendants Walkup, Kozachik, Miranda, Rankin,
16 Riojas, and others who have not yet been indenti-
17 fied, when they agreed to have Plaintiff arrested for
18 future address to the Mayor and Council under the
19 authority of a policy regulating speech before the
20 Mayor and Council they knew to be unconstitution-
21 al;
22 c) Defendant Walkup, on or about September 13,
23 2011, when he directed Defendant Couch and the
24 “Unidentified Officer” to arrest Plaintiff during
25 Plaintiff’s address to the Mayor and Council;
26 d) Defendant Couch and the “Unidentified Officer” on
27 or about September 13, 2011 when, without proba-
28 ble cause to believe an offense had occurred, they
29 arrested Plaintiff while Plaintiff addressed the Tuc-
30 son Mayor and Council;
11
1 e) Defendants Tucson City and Villaseñor for failure to

2 train and otherwise instruct TPD Officers not to ar-
3 rest citizens engaged in lawful public conduct with-
4 out probable cause to believe an offense had been
5 committed;
6 f) Defendant Kozachik on or about September 13,
7 2013 when he referred to Plaintiff’s comments as
8 “offensive and racist attacks.”
9 37. The actions taken by Defendants Walkup, Kozachik,
10 Miranda, Rankin, Riojas, Couch, Villaseñor, the “Uni-
11 dentified Officer,” and others who have not yet been
12 indentified, were the proximate cause of harm done to
13 Plaintiff.
14 VII. COUNT TWO: FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION

17 forth herein.
18 39. Plaintiff alleges that the following Defendants engaged
19 in specific acts of First Amendment retaliation as set
20 forth below:
21 g) Defendant Kozachik on or about September 07,
22 2013 when he spoke stern words to deter Plaintiff
23 from future address to the Mayor ad Council;
24 h) Defendant Riojas when he provided advice to the
25 Mayor and Council on “how to” employ “The Rule”
12
1 to prevent Plaintiff from future address to the Mayor

2 and Council;
3 i) Defendants Walkup, Kozachik, Miranda, Rankin,
9 al;
10 j) Defendant Walkup on or about September 13, 2011
11 when he directed Defendant Couch and the “Uni-
12 dentified Officer” to arrest Plaintiff during Plaintiff’s
13 address to the Mayor and Council;
14 k) Defendant Kozachik on or about September 13,
15 2013 when he referred to Plaintiff’s comments as
16 “offensive and racist attacks.”
18 Miranda, Rankin, Riojas, and others who have not yet
19 been identified, were the proximate cause of harm
20 done to Plaintiff.
21 VIII. COUNT THREE: FALSE ARREST

24 forth herein.
25 42. Plaintiff alleges the following Defendants committed
26 acts of false arrest:
13
1 l) Defendant Walkup on or about September 13, 2011

2 when he directed Defendant Couch and the “Uni-
3 dentified Officer” to arrest Plaintiff as Plaintiff law-
4 fully addressed the Mayor and Council during the
5 “Call to the Audience” portion of the Mayor and
6 Council Meeting;
7 m) Defendant Couch and the “Unidentified Officer” on
8 or about September 13, 2011 when, without proba-
9 ble cause to believe an offense had occurred, they
10 arrested Plaintiff’s lawful address before the Mayor
11 and Council, took him into custody and removed
12 him from the meeting.
13 43. The actions taken by Defendants Walkup, Couch and
14 the “Unidentified Officer” were the proximate cause of
15 harm done to Plaintiff.
16 IX. COUNT FOUR: CONSPIRACY

19 forth herein.
20 45. Plaintiff alleges that the following Defendants met,
21 came to an agreement and acted in concert for the
22 purpose of denying Plaintiff his rights under the First
23 Amendment as set forth below:
24 n) Defendants Walkup, Kozachik, Miranda, Rankin,
14

4 al.
9 X. COUNT FIVE: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF

10 EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
11
14 forth herein.
15 48. Plaintiff alleges that the following Defendants engaged
16 in unlawful conduct for the purpose of denying Plain-
17 tiff his right to free speech, knowing that such denial
18 of rights would (1) diminish Plaintiff’s stature within
19 the community, (2) inhibit Plaintiff’s opportunity for
20 employment as an Arizona Certified Legal Document
21 Preparer, (3) cause dissention within Plaintiff’s house-
22 hold, and (4) cause Plaintiff to suffer significant emo-
23 tional harm, as set forth below:
24 o) Defendant Kozachik when he issued “stern words”
25 on or about September 07, 2011, and again, on or
26 about September 13, 2011 when he referred to
27 Plaintiff’s public commentary as “offensive and rac-
28 ist attacks;”
15
1 p) Defendants Walkup, Kozachik, Miranda, Rankin,

7 al;
8 q) Defendant Walkup when he instructed Defendant
9 Couch and the “Unidentified Officer” to arrest Plain-
10 tiff on or about September 13, 2011.
15 XI. CONCLUSION
16 In America on Trial Alan Dershowitz, in analyzing Walker v

17 Birmingham, 87 S.Ct. 1824, explained that in the sixties, the
18 entire system of justice in the southern states was “commit-
19 ted in theory to free speech and equal rights for all, but in
20 practice used the police and the courts to silence the voice
21 of political opponents.” (emphasis added)
22 Petitioner, who has endured 13 arrests and seven separate
23 criminal prosecutions arising out of legitimate street protest
24 and his excoriation of public officials engaged in the promul-
25 gation of Open Border Policy, and Cronyism, earnestly be-
16
1 lieves the same conditions of oppression exist in Arizona to-

2 day.
3 For nearly a century the Federal Courts have energetically
4 protected the expressive rights of those who exist on the
5 fringes of American society—Communists, Nazis, Klansmen
6 and Hells Angels—with the following rationale: “If we don’t
7 protect the rights of the minority among us, someday the gov-
8 ernment will step in and deny these rights to the rest of us.”
9 In Whitney v People of the State of California, 47 S.Ct. 648,
10 649 the Supreme Court wrote eloquently on the issue of free
11 speech:
12 “Those who won our independence by revolution
13 were not cowards. They did not fear political
14 change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liber-
15 ty. They believed liberty to be the secret of happi-
16 ness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They
17 believed that freedom to think as you will and to
18 speak as you think are means indispensable to the
19 discovery and spread of political truth; that without
20 free speech and assembly discussion would be fu-
21 tile;…that the greatest menace to freedom is an in-
22 ert people; that public discussion is a political duty;
23 and that this should be a fundamental principle of
24 the American government.”
25
26 “They recognized…that repression breeds hate; that
27 hate menaces stable government…They eschewed
28 silence coerced by law—the argument of force in its
29 worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of
30 governing majorities, they amended the Constitu-
31 tion so that free speech and assembly should be
32 guaranteed.”
33 Moreover;
17
1 “(A)s Chief Justice Hughes wrote in De Jonge v Ore-

2 gon, 299 US 353, 365, 260, it is only through free
3 debate and free exchange of ideas that government
4 remains responsive to the will of the people and
5 peaceful change is effected. The right to speak freely
6 and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is
7 therefore one of the chief distinctions that sets us
8 apart from totalitarian regimes.” Terminiello v City
9 of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949).
10
11 The long-feared day of totalitarianism and blatant disre-
12 gard for the right of free political expression has finally come
13 to Tucson Arizona.
14 Defendants’ long term custom, practice and usage of the
15 Tucson Police Department to (1) silence the voice of political
16 dissent, whether that dissent takes place in the streets of
17 Tucson or before the Mayor and Council, and (2) protect local
18 government officials from public criticism, is taken directly
19 from Hitler’s play-book.
20 Our Founding Fathers established the Courts for perilous
21 and revolutionary times such as these. During the great Civil
22 Rights era, the Courts protected the political rights of the
23 American people so they could organize, assemble and ac-
24 complish what in effect was a peaceful revolution; Plaintiff
25 earnestly prays this Court will do no less now.
26 XII. PRAYER
27 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court:

28 A. Declare the policy regulating speech before the Mayor
29 and Council used to arrest and remove Plaintiff from
30 the meeting of the Mayor and Council on September
18
1 13, 2011, and the newly adopted policy, to be uncon-

2 stitutional;
3 B. Upon application, issue a preliminary injunction en-
4 joining the City of Tucson from unlawfully using the
5 provisions of their new policy regulating speech be-
6 fore the Mayor and Council;
7 C. Direct the Tucson Police Department to properly in-
8 struct their officers on the requirements of probable
9 cause;
10 D. Provide Plaintiff with just compensation for Plaintiff’s
11 seizure and the violation of his rights;
12 E. Access punitive damages against Defendants in their
13 individual capacities to deter them and other public
14 officials from engaging in similar misconduct; and
15 F. Provide such additional relief the Court deems prop-
16 er.
17
18 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 29th day of April, 2017.

19
20 BY: /s/Roy Warden
19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 29, 2017 I (1) electronically

transmitted the attached document to the Clerk’s Office using
the CM/ECR System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of
Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECR registrant, and (2)
sent a copy by email to:
Baird Greene
Principal Assistant City Attorney for
Michael G. Rankin
CITY ATTORNEY
P.O. Box 27210
Tucson, AZ 85726-7210
Baird.Greene@tucsonaz.gov
20

Second Amended Complaint

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Second Amended Complaint

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 4:13-cv-00283-DCB-BPV Document 59 Filed 04/29/17 Page 1 of 20

Roy Warden, Publisher

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ROY WARDEN, Case No. CIV 13-283 TUC DCB (BPV)

Vs SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 COMES NOW the Plaintiff Roy Warden, as per order of the

7 1. This is an action pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of

1 unlawful seizure, malicious prosecution and impris-

7 III. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

8 4. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-

10 IV. IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES

11 5. Plaintiff Roy Warden, community activist, writer and

1 all times relevant herein. Defendant Kozachik is sued

1 cial capacity as Tucson City Police Officer, under color

1 under color of state law, regulations, customs and pol-

4 V. FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS

5 16. Plaintiff is an unpaid political activist working on be-

1 2006 federal trial and jury award of 2.9 million dollars

1 Arizona standard for assessing punitive damages.

1 capacity as Tucson City Employee, provided advice to

2 All Defendants knew that the policy Tucson City Officials

3 Defendant Riojas attended to observe Plaintiff and to advise

1 “Citizens attending meetings shall observe rules

1 the particulars of “The Rule.” Significantly; both Mayor

16 VI. COUNT ONE: VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH

17 34. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allega-

4 Such as defying the will of the Gilmartin jury by promoting

1 free society. Since an informed public is the most

1 e) Defendants Tucson City and Villaseñor for failure to

14 VII. COUNT TWO: FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION

15 38. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allega-

1 to prevent Plaintiff from future address to the Mayor

21 VIII. COUNT THREE: FALSE ARREST

22 41. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allega-

1 l) Defendant Walkup on or about September 13, 2011

16 IX. COUNT FOUR: CONSPIRACY

17 44. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allega-

1 future address to the Mayor and Council under the

9 X. COUNT FIVE: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF

1 p) Defendants Walkup, Kozachik, Miranda, Rankin,

16 In America on Trial Alan Dershowitz, in analyzing Walker v

1 lieves the same conditions of oppression exist in Arizona to-

1 “(A)s Chief Justice Hughes wrote in De Jonge v Ore-

27 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court:

1 13, 2011, and the newly adopted policy, to be uncon-

18 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 29th day of April, 2017.

20 BY: /s/Roy Warden

I hereby certify that on April 29, 2017 I (1) electronically

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen