Skip to Main Content Logout My Account Search Menu New District Civil/Criminal
Search Refine Search Close

Location : District Court Civil/Criminal Help

REGISTER OF ACTIONS
CASE NO. C-18-334314-A
John Bridgford Hunt, Appellant(s) vs Boulder City of,
Respondent(s)

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case Type:
Date Filed:
Location:
Cross-Reference Case
Number:
Lower Court Case Number:

Criminal Appeal
08/22/2018
Department 2
C334314
17CR68

PARTY INFORMATION
Appellant

Lead Attorneys
Stephen P. Stubbs
Retained
702-759-3224(W)

Hunt, John Bridgford

Respondent Boulder City of

Steven L. Morris
Retained
702-938-2244(W)
EVENTS & ORDERS OF THE COURT

10/29/2018 Minute Order (11:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Scotti, Richard F.)
Minutes
10/29/2018 11:00 AM
- The Court GRANTS Appellants Motion to Dismiss for Vindictive
Prosecution and on First Amendment Grounds. The Court finds
that the City vindictively prosecuted Appellant John Hunt when
they resurrected their 2016 complaint against Mr. Hunt
containing 3 additional claims, only six (6) days after Mr. Hunt
filed a Civil Rights lawsuit against the City. Additionally, the
Court finds Appellant satisfies the requirements needed to
establish a presumption of vindictive prosecution and the
prosecution fails to prove that the increase in severity of the
charge did not result from any vindictive motive. The only
evidence that the prosecution provides this Court to rebut
Appellants claim of vindictive prosecution is that City Attorney
Mr. Olsen was preparing for retirement and did not have a
paralegal. This evidence is not sufficient to indicate that the
increased charges could not have been brought before the
defendant exercised his right. Almost Eleven (11) months
elapsed between when the City dismissed all charges and Mr.
Hunt filed his civil rights lawsuit. The prosecution had ample
time to prepare a complaint the eleven (11) months previous to
Mr. Hunt filing his civil rights lawsuit. Furthermore, the Court
finds that the City incorrectly states the law of vindictive
prosecution. The city lists in their opposition three ways in
which vindictive prosecution can occur. However, these three
instances are merely examples of when vindictive prosecution
can occur and do not constitute an exclusive list. The Court
agrees with Appellants broader statement of the law, which
provides that Vindictive Prosecution occurs when the
government brings criminal charges in response to a defendant
exercising a protected statutory or constitutional right. U.S. v.
Jenkins, 504 F.3d 694, 699 (9th Cir. 2008). In this case, the
prosecution brought criminal charges against Mr. Hunt 6 days
after Mr. Hunt exercised his statutory and constitutional rights
to file a federal civil rights lawsuit against the City of Boulder
City. The filing of the criminal complaint only days after Mr.
Hunt filed his civil rights lawsuit, coupled with the facts that the
City of Boulder City previously dismissed the criminal case
rising from June 8, 2016 and has not received any additional
evidence, clearly indicates that the prosecution had a vindictive
motive when they refiled their complaint on June 5, 2017. The
Court also dismisses the Obstruction Charge against Mr. Hunt

 on First Amendment Grounds. Mr. Hunt was asserting his 1st
Amendment Right of freedom of speech when he was walking
back and forth in the crosswalk. The City of Boulder knew that
Mr. Hunt was protesting and still charged him with Obstruction
even though the police previous to this incident sent out a
press release asking people to use the crosswalk during the
enforcement activity. The obstruction charge is an abridgment
of free speech and must be dismissed.
Return to Register of Actions