No. 19-291
`
`In The
`
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`ANNE BLOCK,
`
`v.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`WSBA, et al.,
`
`Respondents.
`
`* On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari
`To The United States District Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit
`
`REPLY TO DEFENDANTS KING COUNTY AND OFFICER CARY
`COBLANTZ RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`ANNE BLOCK
`115 West Main St #204
`Monroe, WA 92272
`(206) 326-9933
`
`
`
`In The
`
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`ANNE BLOCK,
`
`v.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`WSBA, et al.,
`
`Respondents.
`
`* On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari
`To The United States District Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit
`
`REPLY TO DEFENDANTS KING COUNTY AND OFFICER CARY
`COBLANTZ RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`ANNE BLOCK
`115 West Main St #204
`Monroe, WA 92272
`(206) 326-9933
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`i
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Reply Argument
`
`A. All three judges associated in this case have pre
`existing conflicts of interest which require their
`disqualification.
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`B. The plaintiff has properly pled first amendment
`retaliation claims with respect to Officer Coblantz. 2
`
`C. Block should have been given an opportunity to
`amend her complaint with respect to King County. 4
`
`D. Block’s petition was timely filed and served.
`
`Conclusion
`
`4
`
`5
`
`i
`
`
`
`2
`
`Cases
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662. (2009)...................
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
`(2007)................................................................
`2,4
`Crawfor-El v. Britton, 93 F.3d 813, 826 (D.C. C r. 1996).....3
`NLRB v. Pittsburgh SteelSS Co., 340 US 498,503
`(1951)
`Mendocino Environmental Center v. Mendocino County 192
`F.3D 1283,1300 (9th CIR. 1999).................................... 3
`Nolan v. McNamee, 82 Wash. 585,144 P. 904 (1914)1
`Nebraska Press Assn ’ v„ Stuart, 427 US 539, 559 (1976).... 3
`New York Times Co. v. United states, 403 U.S. at 714 (1971)
`
`2
`
`Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 f.3d 559 (9* C r. 04/25/2005).......
`Riss v. Angel 934 P.2d 669, 131 Wash.2d 612 (Wash.
`04/10/1997)..................................................................
`United States v. Johnston, 268 U.S. 220,227 (1925) 2
`
`4 1
`
`ReplyArgument
`
`A. All three judges associated in this case have pre
`existing conflicts of interest which require their
`disqualification.
`
`King County has only cursorily reviewed the
`detailed analysis provided in Block’s Petition for
`Writ of Certiorari which addressed in detail the very
`cases that King County wants to consider, including
`the specific reference in Riss v. Angel, 934 P.2d 669,
`131 Wash.2d 612 (Wash. 04/10/1997) to Nolan v.
`McNamee, 82 Wash. 585, 144 P. 904 (1914) in the
`first footnote. Since Block has already refuted King
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`County’s argument in the petition, there is no need
`to repeat those argument in a reply brief.
`
`B. The plaintiff has properly pled first amendment
`retaliation claims with respect to Officer Coblantz .
`
`In response to her detailed analysis provided
`in Block’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari which
`addressed in why Block easily established a prima
`facie case for retaliation under existing case law, the
`King County defendants only provided two cases,
`both of which had long predated Bell Atlantic Corp.
`v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal
`556 U.S. 662. (2009). If these two cases, NLRB v.
`Pittsburgh SteelSS Co., 340 US 498, 503 (1951) and
`United States v. Johnston, 268 U.S. 220,227
`(I925).were applied to motions under the standards
`of Iqbal and Twombly it would be difficult to imagine
`any case that could survive a motion on the
`pleadings after an appeal to the United States
`Supreme Court. We cannot believe it was the intent
`of the court to dispose of First Amendment cases in
`this manner without even a possibility of appeal to
`the United States Supreme Court.
`In her petition, Anne Block presented detailed,
`well documented and plausible allegations against
`Officer Coblantz that are well supported by existing
`case law that even the slightest first amendment
`violation of first amendment rights is enough to
`trigger a 42 USC §1983 violation
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`The act v t es of the government defendants are an
`unlawful attempt to prevent publ cat on of controvers al
`top cs by shutt ng down the press (pr or restra nt). Such
`"pr or restra nts on speech and publ cat on are the most
`ser ous and the least tolerable nfr ngements on F rst
`Amendment r ghts." Nebraska Press Assn ’ v., Stuart, 427,
`US 539, 559 (707$.They come to a court bear ng a heavy
`presumpt on aga nst the r val d ty. New York Times Co. v.
`United states, 403 U.S. at 714 (1971)
`
`In Mendocino En vironmen tal Center v.
`Mendocino County we pointed out that
`the proper First Amendment inquiry
`asks “whether an official’s acts would
`chill or silence a person of ordinary
`firmness from future First Amendment
`activities.” 192 F.3d 1283,1300 (9th Cir.
`1999)(quoting Crawfor-Elv. Britton, 93
`F.3d 813, 826 (D.C. Cir. 1996), vacated
`on other grounds 520 US 1273, 117
`S.Ct.2451, 138 L. Ed.. 2d (1997).
`Because “it would be unjust to allow a
`defendant to escape liability for a First
`amendment violation merely because an
`unusually determined plaintiff persists
`in his protected activity,” Rhodes not not
`have demonstrate that his speech was
`“actually inhibited or suppressed.”
`See id. Rhodes’ allegations that his First
`Amendment rights were chilled, though
`not necessarily silenced is enough to
`perfect his claim. Rhodes v. Robinson,
`408 f.3d 559 (9th Cir. 04/25/2005).
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`By allow ng the courts to gnore these pr nc pies by
`us ng Twombly and Iqbal to character ze the r v olat on as a
`d spute over f nd ngs of fact would effect vely end f rst
`amendment protect ons.
`
`C. Block should have been given an opportunity to
`amend her complaint with respect to King County.
`
`As argued in her petition, Block also should
`have been granted a continuance to demonstrate that
`officer Coblantz’s action were part of a broader
`custom and policy which would have made King
`County liable under 42 USC 1983
`
`D. Block’s petition was timely filed and served.
`
`King County’s third argument about an
`untimely appeal appears to stem from a misreading
`of the record, when the Supreme Court substituted
`the corrected Petition for Writ of Certiorari for the
`original petition on the docket. The original petition
`signed and timely mailed on July 1, 2019 by
`commercial carrier and was served on all the parties
`by regular mail on the same date as shown by the
`certificate of mailing on the original petition. A
`notice of deficiency was issued on July 5, 2019 which
`gave the petitioner 60 days to make the corrections.
`The petitioner complied by mailing and serving the
`corrected petition of August 30, 2019, which is the
`one mentioned in the motion.
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`For all the foregoing reasons, petitioner
`respectfully requests the US Supreme Court reject
`the arguments of the King County defendants and
`accept the petition of Anne Block for review by the
`full court.
`Dated this 11th day of October, 2019.
`
`Anne Block, Pro Se
`115 West Main St #204
`Monroe, WA 9272
`(206) 326-9933
`
`Page 5
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
