Previous Page | Motion | Contents | Docket | Exhibits | Index | Next Page
Crawford-El relies on both Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, and Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, which both proceed from Adickes v. Kress, 398 U.S. 144. In the Halperin sense, Adickes would be a second orphan abandoned by Crawford-El
flags from the Park 'under color of a CFR regulation.' Amended Complaint, p. 4. The Plaintiffs assert that the Officers pressured the Plaintiffs despite the Plaintiffs' alleged exemption from the applicable CFR regulations and the Plaintiffs' possession of valid permits for the flags. Fourth, the Plaintiffs claim that Officers O'Neill and Keness threatened to charge Plaintiff Concepcion Picciotto with a CFR violation unless she removed a plastic cooler from the Park. Finally, the Plaintiffs allege that Officers O'Neill and Keness often threatened to arrest the Plaintiffs for unlawfully camping in the Park. The Officers also allegedly kicked the Plaintiffs, prodded them with nightsticks, and banged on the Plaintiffs' signs." Court's Memorandum (April 12, 1995), pgs.3-4.
December 22, 1994 -- was set for January 6, 1995. As the term of a TRO is only ten days and addresses emergency situations, appellants were amazed at this extraordinary delay, and moved the lower court to recuse itself. Record at 6. The court declined,
decision in Huddle v. Reagan, USDC, civ 88-3130 (J. Green). Record at 14, Exhibit 1.
Motion to Stay Discovery. Record at 28. Appellants then requested that the preliminary injunction hearing -- previously scheduled for January 12th, then cancelled -- be rescheduled. Record at 59.