Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al
Filing
91
OBJECTION to 79 Findings and Recommendations filed by Michael E. Spreadbury. (APP, )
Michael E. Spreadbury
FILED
700 S. 4th Street
AUG 102011
Hamilton, MT 59840
PATRICK E. DUFFY. CLERK
ax DIPUTY CLERK. MISSOULA
Telephone: (406) 363-3877
mspread@hotmail.com
Pro Se Plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
) Cause No: CV-11-64-DWM-JCL
MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY
)
Plaintiff
v.
)
OBJECTION TO COURT
BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,
)
FINDINGS;
CITY OF HAMILTON,
)
PRELIMINARY
LEE ENTERPRISES, INC.,
)
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
BOONE KARLBERG, PC,
)
IN RE:
---------------------------)
Comes now Spreadbury with objection to court findings and recommendations
with respect to preliminary injunctive relief in the aforementioned.
Motion:
Spreadbury moves that Honorable court rejects findings and recommendation of
US Magistrate Lynch, bias to Spreadbury, precludes injunctive relief denial.
1
Plaintiff Objection to Court findings, City
Cause 9:2011-CV-11-64-DWM-JCl
August 9,2011
Brief in Support
The Honorable court is made aware of four (4) findings and recommendations in
the aforementioned by US Magistrate Lynch TR. # 67, 75, 76, 79; abuse of
discretion by District court Rucker v. Davis 237 F. 3d at 1118 (ljh Cir., 2001).
Spreadbury prays for injunctive reliefbefore Honorable District Court in 2
nd
Amended Complaint (TR. #10) for Defendants, acting in color of law:
Count 22 pg. 38 In 649 2nd Amended Complaint --Boone Karlberg PC
Count 23 pg. 38 In 671 2nd Amended Complaint-Lee Enterprises Inc.
Count 24 pg. 41ln 690 2nd Amended Complaint --Bitterroot Public Library
Count 25 pg. 41 In 707 2nd Amended Complaint --City of Hamilton
Successful prayers for injunctive relief rely on 1) success on the merits of the case,
prospect of irreparable harm and 2) serious questions are raised, balance tips in
favor of plaintiff Prudential Real Estate Affiliates Inc. v. PPR Reality Inc. 204 F.
3d 867 864 (ljh Cir., 2000).
Irreparable Harm component
2
Plaintiff Objection to Court findings, City
August 9, 2011
Cause 9:2011-CV·11-64-0WM-JCL
1. Spreadbury has pled permanent disability in aforementioned, an irreparable
harm caused by continuous Defendant unconstitutional, defamatory,
negligent, unlawful action as pled in 2nd Amended Complaint.
2. Defendant City of Hamilton deprived Spreadbury's right to speak July 2011,
deprivation of free speech with Defendant Bitterroot Library Employee
November 4,2009 make irreparable harm to Amendment 1,5, 14 to equal
protection of Spreadbury's free speech protected in the US Constitution.
3. Judge Reardon published in opinion for order of protection that no fmdings
of fact or conclusion of law, procedural due process (no hearing) at Montana
District Court, cause DV-10-93 in the 21 st Montana District Court.
Defendant Boone Karlberg PC, in color of law, beneficiary ofRacketeering
Activity to protect BPL employee deprives Spreadbury liberty, established
right in US Constitution Amendment 5, 14 Semegen v. Weidner 780 F. 2d
727 (fih Cir, 1985), Schreiber Distributing v. Servo Well Furniture Co. 806
F. 2d 1393 (fih Cir, 1996).
4. Defendant Bitterroot Public Library denied library privilege to Spreadbury
in violation of Montana Code Ann. MCA§ 22-1-311 [Use ofLibrary
Privileges] without cause, Procedural Due Process, liberty deprived,
protected in Amendment 5, 14 US Constitution Mathews
V.
Eldridge 424 US
318 (1976). Stima-Plus test, public function, joint action, Nexus test, State
3
Plaintiff Objection to Court findings, City
cause 9:2011-CV-11-64-0WM-JCL
August 9,2011
Compulsion test effected by Defendant public library against Spreadbury
due to statutory law, constitutional right deprived Paul v. Davis 424 US 693
(1976), Johnson v. Knowles 113 F. 3d at 1118-1120 (gh Cir., 1997).
5. Defendant Detective Murphy engaged in depriving Spreadbury right to
speak July 2011 in Hamilton, Montana which is evidence of continued
deprivation of Spreadbury's fundamental constitutional right protected
Amendment 1 US Constitution since Spreadbury filed complaint before this
US District court.
6. Defendant Lee Enterprises showed reckless disregard for Spreadbury's
character in publishing known false, defamatory articles imputing
Spreadbury with criminal activity that was never charged. One year after
constitutionally protected act ofpeaceful assembly on Defendant City public
property, Lee generates 4 articles, 2 elevated to AP with false, false light
information about Spreadbury. National, international publication,
republication of known false information about Spreadbury; request for civil
arrest of Defendant Baucus per Montana Code Ann. MCA§ 27-16-102(2)
requested before court. Irreparable reputational harm effected by Defendant
Lee Enterprises, published approximately 30 defamatory articles in actual
malice within 3 years containing known false information.
4
Plaintiff Objection to Court findings, City
cause 9:2011-CV-11-64-0WM-JCl
August 9,2011
7. Defendant Boone Karlberg PC, since service of summons in the
aforementioned has imputed crime of 18 USC § 912 [impersonating federal
law enforcement], other pleading with known falsity, in malice which
nullifies privilege due to 1) Imputing crime ofprotected activity 2)
nullification of privilege due to malice per Montana Code Ann. MCA§ 27-1
804 [What communication privileged].
Merits of Case
US Magistrate Lynch refuses to uphold Spreadbury's right to peaceful assembly
protected in Amendment 1 US Constitution. Property at 306 State Street Hamilton
Montana is irrefutably public property, public park (Plaintiff Motion for Summary
Judgment City, Public Library TR. # 30) Hague v. CIO 317 US 496 515 (1939).
Spreadbury established to this court original Platt Map of City ofHamilton
Montana original block #18; Defendant Bitterroot Public Library is public property
where Spreadbury peacefully assembled August 20, 2009.
Honorable US District Judge Malloy refused to grant or deny immunity to
Defendant City of Hamilton actors in the aforementioned, no functional analysis of
immunity by Defense counsel, yet court compelled discovery (TR.# 68), Harlow
v. Fitzgerald 457 US 800 (1982), Morley v. Walker 175 F. 3d 756 (9 th Cir. 1999).
5
Plaintiff Objection to Court findings, City
cause 9:2011-CV-11-64-DWM-JCL
August 9, 2011
Implications to Spreadbury
District Court in aforementioned precludes Spreadbury free speech, liberty,
procedural due process protected in US Constitution. Standard for District court
for injunctive relief is repetition of deprivation ofright, irreparable harm A&M
Records Inc. v. Napster Inc. 239 F. 3d at 1013 (tjh Cir., 2001).
Spreadbury has suffered irreparable harm of employment disability due to
intentional, continuous unlawful deprivation of established right by Defendants in
color of law, as pled in aforementioned.
Spreadbury was arrested outside law, without representation, cruel and unusual
punishment by Ravalli County Sheriff Hoffman, main defendant in Spreadbury v.
Hoffman 9: 10-cv00049-DVM where injunctive relief requested against law
enforcement, county judiciary. Specifics: County Judge found Contempt outside
hearing in violation of Montana Code Ann. MCA§ 3-10-401; Spreadbury
unlawfully arrested in violation of 4th Amendment US Constitution. Sentenced to
3 days detention, served outside of general population due to "list" made by
Hoffman; a "policy or custom" specifically made for Spreadbury Monell v City of
New York Dept. ofSocial Services 436 US 658 (1976). Cruel and unusual
punishment of Spreadbury, a disabled person in violation of Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U. S. C. § 12102(2)(A), 8th Amendment US
6
Plaintiff Objection to Court findings, City
Cause 9:2011-CV-11-64-0WM-JCL
August 9, 2011
Constitution Ingraham v. Wright 430 US 651 (1977) citing Greene v. McElroy 360
US 474 (1959) "traditional ideas offair treatment".
Charge of Criminal Mischief MCA§ 45-6-101, Disorderly Conduct MCA§ 45-8
101 have no probable cause, no equal protection for Spreadbury who wrote with
chalk on a public sidewalk, third annual "Daly Days" chalk festival was held day
after Spreadbury arraignment for same activity protected in Amendment 1,14 US
Constitution. Honorable Court is infonned Defendant City ofHamilton,
Defendant Detective Murphy of the Hamilton Montana Police Department
participated in the unlawful detention of Spreadbury for writing on public sidewalk
with chalk, did not uphold Spreadbury right to free speech, equal protection as
protected in Amendment 1, 4, 14 US Constitution.
Spreadbury faces threat of repeated injury O'Shea v. Littleton 414 US at 495-496
(1974). Defendants actions against Spreadbury meet the "capable of repetition"
clause: Spreadbury subject to illegal activity on the part ofthe Defendants in the
aforementioned and entitled to preliminary court injunction, equitable relief
Defunis v. Odegarardma US 312 (1974).
Spreadbury has afftrmative proof Defendants "capable of repetition yet evading
review" from this honorable court as "not entitled" Southern Pacific Terminal Co.
v. ICC 299 US 498 515 (1911), Roev. Wade 410 US 113125 (1973). Spreadbury
7
Plaintiff Objection to Court findings, City
cause 9:2011-CV-ll~~DWM-JCL
August 9,2011
is in live controversy with city, county: four (4) unlawful arrests since 2007 with
documented irreparable injury requires court intervention Los Angeles c. Lyons 461
US at 109 (1983).
As court ignores Spreadbury's peaceful assembly on Defendant City of Hamilton
public property August 20, 2009 as pled in the aforementioned, initiates
application of erroneous legal principles, represents an abuse of discretion by the
District CourtRuckerv. Davis 237 F. 3d at 1118 (gth Cir., 2001) citing Does 1-5 v.
Chadler 83 F. 3d 1150 1152 (gth Cir., 1996).
Spreadbury has properly pled for District Court to properly intervene with
equitable, preliminary injunctive relief ofunlawful activity of Defendants deprive
Spreadbury protected right in the aforementioned, caused irreparable injury.
Certificate of Compliance
From LR 7(d)(2)(E) US District Court Rules Montana, I certify that this brief
confonns with 14 point font, New Times Roman typeface, is double spaced,
contains 1310 words excluding title page, this compliance.
Respectfully submitted thi
2011
BY:
----~-=~--~~----~-------------
Michael E. Spreadbury, S IfRepresented Plaintiff
8
Certificate of Service
Cause No. 9:2011-cv-l1-0064-DWM-JCL
I certify as Plaintiff in this action, a copy ofthe below named motion was served
upon the US District Court Missoula Division and all opposing counsel for parties
in this above named cause of action by first class mail. The following addresses
were used for service:
Objection to court Findings & Recommendations: Preliminary Injunctive Relief
Russell Smith Federal Courthouse
Clerk of Court
201 E. Broadway
Missoula, MT 59803
Defendant Counsel:
Plaintiff Counsel:
William L. Crowley
Michael E. Spreadbury
Boone Karlberg PC
PO Box 416
PO Box 9199
Hamilton, MT 59840
Missoula MT 59807
(self-represented)
Jeffrey B Smith
Garlington, Lohn, & Robbinson PLLP
POBox 7909
Missoula MT 59807
Dated - - -8/9/2011 - - - -
Mich el E. Spreadbury, Pro Se Plaintiff
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?