CONCEPCION PICCIOTTO, et. al.,
          Plaintiffs,

     v.                            Civil Action No. 87-3290-LFO

DONALD MODEL, et. al.,

Plaintiffs hereby move the Court to reconsider its disposition of this action, entered by granting the Government's Motion To Dismiss, by Order filed January 26, 1988.

The ground for this motion is that plaintiffs had filed a timely opposition to defendants' Motion To Dismiss, which apparently was not considered by the Court in its deliberation of this matter.

Plaintiffs opposition was returned by the Clerk's Office. There was no indication that the Court was at all cognizant of plaintiffs' opposition. There was only the cryptic expladnation: "Why (sic) is an amended proposed order?" (SEE, Plaintiffs' Motion For Leave To File An Amended Proposed Order, filed herewith.)

Plaintiffs submit that the appendage of an "amended proposed order" to their perfectly proper opposition to the Motion To Dismiss cannot possibly rise to the level of substantial or coherent cause for disregarding their entire opposition.

In the interests of a rational judicial system plaintiffs suggest that the Clerk's rejection of their opposition must be viewed by this Court as a clerical error, which, if uncorrected, would deprive plaintiffs of any meaningful access to this litigatory system, and reduce the concept of reasonable justice to a travesty.

Therefore plaintiffs file herewith a copy of their Opposition To Defendants' Motion To Dismiss (Attachment 1), and implore the Court to consider it ... if only to foster the illusion of having impartially weighed both sides of the argument.

Respectfully submitted,

William Thomas 203-012
Occoquan II, Dorm K-II
P.O. Box 85
Lorton, Virginia
22079

I, ________________, hereby certify that, on this day of February, 1988, a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs Motion To Reconsider was served, by first class U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, upon AUSA Micheal Martinez, Judiciary Square, 555 4th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20001.