1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

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

AMENDMENT TO RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

THE HON. BERNARDO P. VELASCO

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Roy Warden, with an Amendment to his Response and Request that this Court DENY the Defendants Motion to Dismiss, as set forth below: POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1.

Subsequent to Plaintiff filing his Response to Motion to Dismiss on May 18, 2012 he re-read Defendants Motion, and, in an excess of caution with respect to the important conspiracy issues set forth in the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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

First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff believes the Court, and the Defendants, will benefit from the following citation: [Plaintiff] also alleges the defendants conspired. In what other way can plaintiff plead conspiracy? Certainly he is not required to list the place and date of defendants meetings and the summary of their conversations. He should not be required here (in Motion to Dismiss on the Pleadings) to plead his evidence. If (Plaintiff) cannot uncover through discovery any evidence to detail and support his conspiracy theory, then a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants would be appropriate. But until discovery has been allowed and a motion for summary judgment has been made, it is premature to dismiss (Plaintiffs) claims on the pleadings. Ashelman v Pope, 769 F.2d 1360, 1362 9th Cir. 1985. (Emphasis added; internal citations omitted) CONCLUSION Plaintiff believes his First Amended Complaint pled sufficient facts to maintain his conspiracy claims, and that he was injured pursuant to the customs and practices of Tucson City government, as required by Monell.1 In any event, Plaintiff respectfully submits; it would be premature for the Court to dismiss his conspiracy claims, as per Ashelman, prior to the completion of discovery. PRAYER Plaintiff prays this Court consider the above citation and DENY Defendants Motion to Dismiss. // // // // // // // //

Ashelman at 1363, citing Monell v New York City Dept of Social Services, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2037

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

// // RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 21st day of May, 2012. BY: _______________________ Roy Warden, Plaintiff

I hereby certify that on May 21, 2012, I served the attached document by mail, and by email, on the following: Viola Romero-Wright Principal Assistant City Attorney for Michael Rankin City Attorney P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 Viola.romero@tucsonaz.gov BY: _______________________ Roy Warden, Plaintiff