UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
William Thomas, et. al. |
Plaintiffs pro se, |
v. | C.A. No. 95-1018
| Judge Charles R. Richey
The United States, et. al. |
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A
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
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PRELIMINARY RELIEF
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.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
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
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
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,