THOMAS v. REAGAN

USDC Cr. No. 84-3552

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WILLIAM THOMAS, et al    
     Plaintiff Pro Se    
                         
versus                          CA 84-3552
                                Judge Louis Oberdorfer
UNITED STATES, et al     
     Defendants

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO RESPOND TO THE MAGISTRATE'S
MEMORANDUM OPINIONS, REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT OF JAMES C. LINDSEY
AND DEFENDANT CANFIELD

Upon reference from the Court (Oberdorfer, J.), dated September 25, 1986, on November 14, 1986, U.S. Magistrate Arthur Burnett held a hearing on the motions of all defendants for Summary Judgment. on December 15, 1986 he filed two Memorandum Opinions, Reports & Recommendations (Canfield and/or Lindsey Memo[s]) [1].

On or about November 17, 1986 plaintiffs filed a Motion with the Magistrate requesting that plaintiffs be provided with a copy of the transcript from that hearing. That Motion was unopposed by any defendants Likewise the Magistrate never responded to that request.

1. As of this writing plaintiffs patiently await word from this Court with respect to the availability of a Record of the arguments presented on November 14, 1986. As explained in plaintiffs' Motion of December 17, 1986, that transcript is vital to the preparation of a comprehensive response to the filings addressed in the instant Motion

2. Owing to the extended Christmas holiday, the only facilties available to plaintiffs for the preparation and research of their submissions to this Court, have been been regularly unavailable.


[1 Apparently (see, Magistrate's Canfield Memo, page 1, ftn. 1) the Magistrate intends to file at least one, but conceivabley two, additional Memorandum Opinions.]

3. The circumstances and issues relating to defendants Canfield and Lindsey are, in all cases, shared by one or more of the other Federal Defendants. The reasoning relied upon to support the Magistrate's Recommendations with respect to the Summary Judgment Motions of defendants Canfield and Lindsey touches, at many key points, upon the actions of other of the Federal Defendants. The Magistrate has still failed to file his Memorandum Opinion(s), Report(s) & Recommendation(s) addressing the Federal Defendants. Plaintiffs submit that by allowing consideration of all the Magistrate's factually and legally related Reports, prior to making a response to any, will facilitate a clean and expeditious wrap up of the preliminary matters remaining on the Record of this case, while affording plaintiffs a fair opportunity to address the issues raised by the Magistrate's opinion.

Upon the foregoing reasons, and any such as may appear appropriate to this Court, plaintiffs request an extention of time, up to and including January 5, 1986, in which to file a proper response to the Magistrate's two outstanding Recommendations.

Happy New Year.

Respectfully submitted this 29th day of Decenber, 1986,

____________________________________
William Thomas, Plaintiff Pro Se
1440 N Street NW, #410
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 462-3542


Case Listing --- Proposition One ---- Peace Park