Memorandum - Defendant's Claims
C. DEFENDANTS' CLAIM THAT DAMAGES
MUST BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION, IS A QUESTIONABLE OPINION
Defendants state a strong opinion:
"It cannot be disputed that claims for money damages against federal officials in
their official capacities are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Clark
v. Library of Congress, 750 F.2d 89, 103-104 (D.C. Cir. 1984);
20
Kline v. Republic of El Salvador, 603 F.Supp. 1313, 1316 (D.D.C. 1985)."
Def. Memo at 13.
Plaintiffs have some doubts:
"All defendants were found liable for compensatory damages. In ddition, all of
the FBI defendants, and Wilson and Herlihy of MPD, were found liable for punitive
damages. Five plaintiffs recovered $93,750 each." Hobson v. Wilson, 737 F.2d 1 (1984).
"For the reasons set forth below, I am of the opinion that federal courts do have
the power to award damages for violation of "constitutionally protected interests"
and I agree with the Court that a traditional judicial remedy such as damages is
appropriate to the vindication of the personal interests protected by the Fourth
Amendment" Bivens, at 422, Chief Judge Lumbard, concurring.
1. THE IDEA THAT,
"THE PLAINTIFFS CANNOT SUE INDIVIDUAL
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FOR COMMON LAW TORTS
ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED WITHIN THE SCOPE
OF THEIR FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT,"
ISN'T WORTH TALKING ABOUT
Funny, plaintiffs haven't made any tort claims. Compare, Def's Memo pgs. 15-18.
2. THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO COMPLY
WITH THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
OF THE FTCA.
See above.
"Under amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 ... 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." Westmoreland at 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.
21
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, in the interests of truth, justice, and expediency, plaintiffs hereby move the Court to Order a hearing to determine whether the U.S. Attorney intentionally or incompetently misrepresented the facts of plaintiffs' claims, or whether plaintiffs are the ones making the misrepresentations.
A proposed Order is attached.
Respectfully submitted this ____ day of January, 1995,
___________________________________
William Thomas, Plaintiff pro se
2817 11th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 462-0757
22