Motion for a Preliminary Injunction


William Thomas, et. al.       |   
      Plaintiffs pro se,      | 
       v.                     |          C.A. No. 95-1018
                              |       Judge Charles R. Richey
The United States, et. al.    |      
      Defendants.             | 


Incorporating by reference paragraphs 1 thou 35 of his Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, filed this date, plaintiff hereby moves this Court to issue a preliminary injunction.


To obtain a preliminary injunction a plaintiff must show that in the absence of its issuance he will suffer irreparable injury and also that he is likely to prevail on the merits. Doran v. Salem Inn, 422 U.S. 922, 911, see also Fireman's Fund v. Leslie & Elliot, 867 F.2d 150.

First, from the foregoing discussion it can be seen that there is a likelihood the plaintiff will prevail on the merits of the Complaint. It is clear that defendants have simply ignored applicable legal prerequisites set out in the APA, EPA, and CFR. In restricting access to the areas within their traffic barriers without regard to due process defendants have treated the public street and park as if it were their own private property.

Second, If relief is not granted, and defendants are permitted to make permanent the closures effected on May 20th, plaintiff will be irreparably injured in his efforts to exercise freedom of expression in a free and open park. Loss of First


Amendment exercise has been held to constitute "irreparable injury," Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976), and to constitute "substantial money damages." City of Watseka v. Illinois Public Action Council, 796 F.2d 1559, Summarily Aff'ed by the Supreme Court, slip opinion 86-631, January 27, 1987.

Third, In light of defendants' total disregard for the processes intended to check and regulate government restrictions on public access to public places, the Court must should enjoin defendants from making permanent the sweeping changes represented by the concrete barriers erected by defendants on May 20, 1995, before there has been a judicial review of defendants' actions.

Finally, because plaintiff does not request defendants be immediately required to undo any of the defendants' alleged security closures pending a fact-finding process to test their theories, the issuance of a Preliminary Injunction will not harm the defendants. It will simply require defendants to abide by well-established law regarding the administration of public land, while maintaining the status quo by insuring that defendants' diminishment of freedom and democracy is indeed justified by rational service to a legitimate interest.


WHEREFORE plaintiffs hereby pray the Court to issue an Order preliminarily enjoining defendants from causing physical changes to the area enclosed by the traffic barriers which defendants caused to be installed on May 20, 1995, or fencing and/or closing the Park day or night, pending a trial of plaintiffs' complaint for a Permanent Injunction.

A proposed order is attached


Respectfully submitted, June 5, 1995,


William Thomas, Plaintiff pro se

P.0 Box 27217

Washington, D.C. 20038

(202) 462-0757


On June 5, 1995, I mailed a copy of the foregoing Amended Complaint and Petition For A Preliminary Injunction to be served, to the office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Civil Division, at 555 4th Street NW, Washington, D.C., and upon the office of the Corporation Council for the District of Columbia, Civil Division, at 441 4th Street NW Washington, D.C. 20001.