UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 91-5304
(C.A. No 88-3130)

Mary Huddle, et al,
Appellants

         v.

Ronald W. Reagan, et al,
           Appellees

FEDERAL APPELLEES' REPLY BRIEF ON
THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE

William Thomas is the only appellant to file an opposition to federal defendant's motion for summary affirmance. None of the arguments in his opposition are meritorious. Indeed, only two issues warrant a reply in the interest of clarity.

Appellant persists that the District Court did not resolve his claims with respect to 55 Fed. Reg. 40879 or with respect to 36 CFR § 2.12. The Federal Register reference is to a notice of proposed rule making restricting the storage of property in Lafayette Park. Neither regulation is cited in plaintiffs' amended complaint; thus, it is not surprising that the District Court did not specifically address them in its memorandum.

Moreover, both of these regulations are similar to other regulations proscribing certain activities in Lafayette Park that were cited by the District Court and appellants. Thus, these regulations are presumably part the conspiracy appellants alleged has existed against their expressive activities. The District Court properly addresed and disposed of this claim. It correctly found that appellants failed to meet the heightened pleading standard under Martin v. Malhoyt, 830 F.2d 237, 257 (D.C. Cir.),

1

rein. denied, 833 F.2d 1049 (D.C. Cir. 1987). See Huddle Mem. at 10-11. Similarly, the District Court correctly found that appellants can not support their selective enforcement claim, because there is no indication that appellants were treated differently from others who violated the regulations or that appellees' treatment of appellants was improperly motivated. See Huddle Mem. at 15-16.

Finally, appellant complains that the District Court erred in not holding a hearing on his motion for Rule 11 sanctions. Appellant is incorrect. The District Court clearly considered and rejected appellants' frivolous request for sanctions. See Huddle Mem. at 24, n. 20. It is under no obligation to conduct a hearing on those motions.

For these reasons the decision of the District Court should be summarily affirmed.

/s/ Jay B. Stephens
JAY B. STEPHENS
United States Attorney

/s/ John D. Bates
JOHN D. . BATES,
Assistant United States Attorney

/s/ R. Craig Lawrence
R. CRAIG LAWRENCE
Assistant United States Attorney

/s/ Robert L. Shapiro
ROBERT L. SHAPIRO
Assistant United States Attorney

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing reply was served via first class mail to each of the following this 4th day of December, 1991:

Mary E. Huddle
804 West Pine Street
Missoula, MT 59802

William Thomas
2817 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001

Ellen Thomas
P.O. Box 27217
Washington, D.C. 20038

Concepcion Picciotto
P.O. Box 4951
Washington, D.C. 20008

Scott M. Galindez
P.O. Box 27217
Washington, D.C. 20038

Victor Long
Assistant Corporation Counsel
1350 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,
Room 314
Washington, D.C. 20004

Robert L. Shapiro
Assistant United States Attorney
555 4th Street, N.W., 4th Floor -
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 514-7198