P.O. Box 4931
Washington, D.C. 20009
April 4, 1993
William Suter Clerk
RE: Thomas v Reagan, et. al., 92-6732
of the Supreme Court
of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20543
I hope that you will assist me in correcting a minor misunderstanding
which is causing me a relatively major problem.
Yesterday, in a letter addressed to William Thomas, from
the Court's In Forma Pauperis Department (enclosed), I learned
that I have not been added as a party "to the petition at
this time," because an application was "granted on October
14, 1992 extending the time for (Thomas) to file (his) petition."
This information came as an unexpected disappointment for
two reasons. First, from what Thomas had told me, the Clerk's
Office said that I was not listed as a party to the case simply
because my motion to proceed in forma pauperis had been misplaced,
a mistake that Thomas said would be easy to correct. Second, I
had not viewed this as "William Thomas"' petition. I
thought it was a joint petition from a judgement in our joint
From the wording of Rule 13, "(a) petition of certiorari
to review a judgement in any case," it appeared that one
motion for an extension of time would be sufficient for filing
a joint petition to review the judgement of a single case (U.S.
App. 91-5304) which Thomas and I have jointly pursued since 1988.
In the sense that my name is already on the signature page
of "the petition" presently before the Court, it would
be very helpful if you don't view this as a question of "adding"
me "to the petition." Instead, you could simply recognize
that I am already a party by virtue of my signature on the petition.
I am not asking you to stretch the rules. I am just asking
you to apply a reasonable interpretation, an interpretation that
will insure I am not deprived "meaningful access to the courts,"
which was also the basis of the application, granted by this Court
on October I4, 1992, for an extension of time to file the petition.
/s/ Concepcion Picciotto