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