UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Federal Defendants Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Notice
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
William Thomas, et. al. |
Plaintiffs pro se, |
v. | C.A. No. 95-1018
| Judge Charles R. Richey
The United States, et. al. |
FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF
RELATED CASES AND MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION
In this suit concerning the action taken by the Director of the United States Secret Service on May 20, 1995, restricting access to portions of certain streets around the White House complex to general public vehicular traffic, plaintiff has filed a notice of related cases and moved to consolidate this case with a notice of related cases and moved to consolidate this case with Thomas v. United States, Civil No. 94-2747 (D.D.C.) [Thomas 1], currently prnding before this Court.
Under Rule 405 of the Rules of the United States District Court for hte District of Columbia, "a case filed by a pro se litigant with a prior case pending shall be deemed related and assigned to the judge having the earlier case." Id. This has already happened in this case. As noted above, both of these cases are pending before the same judge, and thus plaintiff's notice of related case is moot.
Plaintiff's motion to consolidate these two cases, however, should be denied. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42, a court may consolidate "actions involving a common question of law or fact" in order to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. Id.
Plaintiff concedes that Thomas 1 is a Bivens action alleging constitutional violations from plaintiff's presence in Lafayette Park. Indeed, the defendatns in Thomas 1 consist of the United States Park Service, two Park Police officers, and a Park Servce employee. None of these individuals or the Park Service are defendants in the instant case.
Moreover, plaintiff's claims in Thomas 1 relate to his activities in Lafayette Park, including his challenge to the manner in which the Park Police is enforcing its signs and structure regulation and its comping regulation. None of these issues is present in the current case. Rather, as explained above, the instant case involves action by the United States surrounding the White House Complex.
Thus, there are no common issues of fact or law that would warrant consolidating these two cases. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to consolidate sould be denied.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., D.C. BAR #303115
United States Attorney
MARINA UTGOFF BRASWELL, D.C. BAR #416587
Assistant United States Attorney