UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiffs' Motion to reconsider Court's Order of 2/1/95
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. |
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE
COURT'S FEBRUARY 1, 1995 ORDER
"The Court shares the Plaintiffs' wish(es) to resolv this matter quickly, (and)
to do so in a just manner that is consistent with the law and fair to both parties."
Order, January 27, 1995, pg. 3, parentheses substituting (to eliminate any possible
appearance of partiality).
In the beginning, to preclude any hint "of bias or prejudice sufficient to permit the average citizen reasonably to question a judge's impartiality" (Order, January 9, 1995, pg. 2), the Court directed "any Oppositions" to Motions filed by both parties on January 11, 1995, be filed by January 23rd, "add(ing) the precatory wish that any Replies thereto shall be filed on or before 4:00 on January 27, 1995." Order, January 11th, pg. 2.
Both "Defendants' TRO Opposition to Reconsider Denial of the TRO," and "Defendants' Motion for Stay of Discovery Pending Resolution of the Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss" were filed on January 23, 1995, pursuant to the Court's even-handed Order of January 11, 1995.
A day later, on January 24, 1995, plaintiffs filed ("Out of
Time," pursuant to leave of Court) the Opposition required by the
Court's Order of January 11th.
On February 1st, the Court admitted,
"receipt of the Plaintiffs' 'Second Motion for an extension of Time Within Which
to Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Reconsider Denial of the TRO ... and Defendants'
Motion for Stay of Discovery Pending Resolution of the Individuals Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss.... (and)
ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' Second Motion for an Extension ... is GRANTED,
as hereinafter provided ... on or before 4:00 p.m. on February 2, 1995."
Yet, just five days earlier, the Court had seemingly mooted any "Reply" plaintiffs
may have made when it, ORDERED:
"Defendants' Motion for Stay of discovery Pending Resolution of the individuals
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.... shall be GRANTED." Order, January 27, 1995, pg. 2.
Because of confusion and short notice, the Court's February 1, 1995 Order that plaintiffs reply to defendants' January 23rd pleadings by February 2, 1995 effectively took plaintiffs by surprise and precluded adequate Replies to the pertinent factual and legal issues raised in the documents filed by defendants on January 23, 1995. At the same time the Court allowed defendants until February 9, 1995 to reply to the document Plaintiffs had filed, by leave of Court, on January 24, 1 1995.
Perhaps the Court was absolutely convinced that no set of circumstances could possibly combine which could conceivably cause the Court to sway its decision to GRANT Defendants' Motion, thereby creating the impression that anything further plaintiffs might have to say could only be superfluous.
Commendably, the Court has shown great care insuring defendants every opportunity to fully brief their case before the Court reaches any decision which may prove adverse to defendants'
On the other hand, in its January 27, 1995 Order, the Court acknowledged:
"The Court is also in receipt of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions or
Other Disciplinary Action, or Alternatively to Dismiss the Complaint as Frivolous."
Understandably the Court may have missed the point that:
"Upon reflection, it seems that to dignify Defendants' Motion with an Opposition
might only lend credence to an otherwise incredible document." 
All else notwithstanding, plaintiffs continue to labor under the impression that a Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions is the most appropriate "Opposition" to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Unfortunately, with the appearance of the Court's emergency Order,  it begins to seem as if the Court's "precatory wish," with respect to "Replies" may actually have been more ardent than the adjective first implied.
In an effort to insure the Record was clear on at least a couple of points, plaintiffs filed some hastily prepared documents on February 2nd.
However, those pleadings left unaddressed certain extremely important issues regarding the documents filed by defendants on
[1 Working, as he does, under a vow of poverty, the document production systems available to Thomas (who had been doing all of plaintiffs clerical work) leave a little to be desired by way of print quality. It has been noticed that there are a few sentences that printed out nearly illegibly. Therefore plaintiff Thomas would like to express the wish that if the Court finds difficulty in understanding what they've written, It please identify the words it can't make out.]
[2 On February 1, 1995 the Court's courtroom clerk said, the Court directed that because of the short notice, it was necessary to notify plaintiffs via telephone of, at least the bottom line of, the Court's Order.]
January 23rd, and plaintiffs take strong exception to the Court's requirement that they reply to Defendants' Opposition (filed January 23rd), on or before February 2nd, while the Court has graciously allowed Defendants until February 9th to reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition filed (by leave of Court, Out of Time on January 24th) only one day later.
Therefore, with a mind toward materializing the mutually
held "wish(es) to resolve this matter quickly (and) to do so in a
just manner that is consistent with the law and fair to both
parties" expressed in the Court's Order (January 27, 1995, pg.
3), we hereby arrive at this:
A semblance of impartiality would be better portrayed if the Court reconsidered its Order of February 1, 1995, and ORDERED both parties to file whatever Replies, Oppositions, or Motions they like (consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of course) by 4:00 p.m. February 9, 1995. For the Court's convenience a proposed Order is attached.
Respectfully submitted this 6th day of February, 1995.
2817 llth Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby state that, on ___________ , 1995, a hand delivered copy of the foregoing Plaintiff' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's February 1, 1995 Order went to the office of the United States Attorney, 555 4th Street NW, Washington, D.C. ROOM 10-808.