Roy Warden, Publisher

Arizona Common Sense

6502 E. Golf Links Road #267
Tucson Arizona 85730
roywarden@hotmail.com
520 551-3496

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
ROY WARDEN, Case No. 4:18-cv-00096RM

Plaintiff, In Forma Pauperis NOTICE OF OPPOSITION TO

EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION
BY A MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Vs
CHRIS MAGNUS, individually
and in his official capacity as
Chief of the Tucson Police De-
partment; ROB BROWN, indi-
vidually and in his official ca-
pacity as Officer of the Tucson
Police Department; CORY AU-
GERMAN, individually and in
his official capacity as Officer
of the Tucson Police Depart-
ment; RYAN SACHS, individu-
ally and in his official capacity
as Officer of the Tucson Police
Department; ROB BRANDT in-
dividually and in his official
capacity as SGT. of the Tucson
Police Department; THE CITY
OF TUCSON; and DOES 1-100,
Defendants.

1 COMES NOW the Plaintiff Roy Warden, with his Notice of

2 Opposition to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a Magistrate Judge
3 (Doc 3), for reasons set forth below:
4

1
1 FACTS
2 1. Prior to the filing of this case, Plaintiff, a community
3 activist,1 filed five separate U.S.C. 42 § 1983 actions
4 against COT officials dating back to 2007. Each of
5 these cases2 was assigned to—or by skillful manipula-
6 tion3—ended up in the hands of U.S. District Court
7 Judge David Bury or Magistrate Judge Bernardo Ve-
8 lasco, in-spite of L.R.Civ.P. 3.7 which mandates ran-
9 dom, automated judge selection.
10 ARGUMENT
11 2. Rule 3.7 of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct, pro-
12 vides:
13 “A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned
14 to the judge… Although there are times when
15 disqualification is necessary to protect the
16 rights of litigants and preserve public confi-
17 dence in the independence, integrity, and im-
18 partiality of the judiciary, judges must be avail-
19 able to decide matters that come before the
20 courts. Unwarranted disqualification may bring
21 public disfavor to the court and to the judge per-
22 sonally. The dignity of the court, the judge’s re-

1 Plaintiff has aggressively investigated and challenged COT

“Open Border Policy” for 13 years.
2 Judge Bury dismissed all these cases. Plaintiff appealed to
the 9th Circuit and prevailed on two which were reversed,
sent back down to Judge Velasco and consolidated. The last
case still awaits resolution.
3 A series of local District Court judges, some making sub-
stantive rulings prior to recusal, misapplied 28 U.S.C. § 455,
shirked their duty and directed Plaintiff’s case to Judge
Bury.

2
1 spect for fulfillment of judicial duties, and a
2 proper concern for the burdens that may be
3 imposed upon the judge’s colleagues require
4 that a judge not use disqualification to avoid
5 cases that present difficult, controversial, or un-
6 popular issues.”

7 3. Plaintiff respectfully submits: Rule 3.7 was written to

8 prevent the court clerk from assigning cases to specific
9 judges on the basis of how those judges were likely to
10 rule (court directed “judge shopping”) which is exactly
11 the kind of behind-the-scenes maneuvering this par-
12 ticular Plaintiff has endured since 2007.
13 4. U.S. Judges are sworn to “protect and defend the con-
14 stitution,” to put aside their political opinions (if any)
15 and to decide each case on the merits.
16 5. Plaintiff has carefully read the “Rosemary Marquez
17 Public Questionnaire” Judge Marquez submitted prior
18 to her appointment to the bench and, on the basis of
19 “public confidence in the independence, integrity, and
20 impartiality of the judiciary” set forth in ¶2 and 28
21 U.S.C. § 455, finds no public policy reason for Judge
22 Marquez to remove herself from this case.
23 PRAYER

24 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays Judge Rosemary

25 Marquez to complete her assignment as the presiding judge of
26 this case.
27

28

3
1 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 26th day of February,
2 2018.
3 BY: _________________
4 Roy Warden