Plaintiffs' Joint Motion
for Rule 11 Sanctions


     William Thomas, et. al.       |          C.A. No. 94-2742
           Plaintiffs pro se,      |          Judge Charles R. Richey
               v.                  |
     The United States, et. al.    |
           Defendants.             |


On January 23, 1995 the U.S Attorney filed an Opposition to Plaintiff William Thomas' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint as Frivolous. [1]

Unfortunately, from their perspective, in the interests of truth and helping to promote credibility for the nation's judicial system, plaintiffs Ellen Thomas and Concepcion Picciotto are sincerely led to believe the only responsible thing to do is to move for the imposition of Rule 11 Sanctions.

Essentially, defendants sincerely profess:

"In their complaint Plaintiffs assert little more than that Park Police officers
have attempted to enforce the regulations..."
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Memo, pg. 1.

Maybe the U.S. Attorney can explain how a complaint, which simply alleges police officers have just been doing their job,

[1 If we have proper understanding, this morning, Thomas says, Ms. Woods, called to say that, owing to the short notice, your Honor had asked her to notify us that the Court had recently Ordered that a Reply to the Defendants' Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss for Frivolity, be filed before 4:00 tomorrow.
We would like to take this opportunity to say that we have not found Thomas' tardy filings in this case, and to express gratitude for the forgiving nature displayed by the Court's patience with Thomas' lethargic method of filing.]


might possibly be something other than frivolous. If not, with all due respect, plaintiffs suggest, the Court must impose sanctions on counsel for filing an Opposition to a Motion to Dismiss what is, crediting just one side of the U.S. Attorney's mouth, such a facially frivolous complaint. Because when a:

"pleading, motion, or other paper ... is ... interposed for any improper purpose,
such as ... to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation
... the court upon its own initiation, shall impose upon the person who signed it ..
an appropriate sanction.' (Westmoreland v. CBS, 770 F.2d 1168, 1173,
emphasis in original.


"Under amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ... the new provision that the court
'shall impose' sanctions mandates the imposition of sanctions when warranted by
groundless or abusive practices. The rule's provision that the court 'shall impose'
sanctions for motions abuses thus concentrated the district court's discretion on the
SELECTION of an appropriate sanction rather than on the DECISION to impose
sanctions." Id., 1174, EMPHASIS in original, see also, AM Int'l Inc. v. Eastman Kodak,
39 Fed.R.Serv.2d (Callaghn) 433, Eastway Construction Corp v. City of New York, 762
F.2d 243, 254 n. 7.


Whereas, "frivolous" is "frivolous," and counsel sure seems to be saying "it is" frivolous (Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Memo, pg. 1), AND "it isn't" frivolous (Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss for Frivolity, pgs. 1 and 2), logic would onlydemand at least one of these two claims must be groundless.

Thus, the Court need only determine which of the claims is groundless before selecting the appropriate sanctions.

Respectfully submitted this 1st day of February 1995,

Concepcion Picciotto, Plaintiff
Post Office Box 4931
Washington, D.C. 20008

Ellen Thomas, Plaintiff
2817 11th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 462-0757