Defendants Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reschedule the Preliminary Injunction Hearing
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
William Thomas, et. al. | C.A. No. 94-2742
Plaintiffs pro se, | Judge Charles R. Richey
The United States, et. al. |
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO "PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
TO RESCHEDULE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING"
Plaintiffs have moved this Court to reschedule the previously set hearing on the plaintiffs'motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction. The defendants oppose this request for the following reasons. The individually named defendants have pending a motion to dismiss the claims against them on the basis of the heightened pleading standard and qualified immunity.  Until this motion is decided, these defendants should not be compelled testify at any hearing that addresses the merits of the plaintiffs' claims. Second, after the defendants' motion is jinally decided, the defendants intend to move for summary judgment as to the merits of all of plaintiffs' claims. If the motion is granted, it will obviate the need for any hearing. If the motion is not granted, it will, the defendants believe, at least substantially narrow the issues. Finally, the plaintiffs agreed to combine their request for
[1 Defendant Robbins has also moved to dismiss the claims against him on the additional ground that the plaintiffs have alleged no personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violations, but have sued him on a theory of supervisory liability.]
preliminary injunctive relief with the merits of their case. For all of these reasons, the defendants respectfully submit that the Court should not reschedule the hearing on plaintiffs' claims. Court should not reschedule the hearing on plaitiffs' claims.
Eric H. HOLDER, JR., D.C. BAR #303115
United States Attorney
SALLY M. RIDER, D.C. BAR #436588
Assistant United States Attorney
RANDOLPH MYERS, Bsq.
Office of the Soilicitor