THOMAS v. REAGAN

USDC Cr. No. 84-3552

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WILLIAM THOMAS,                 
               Plaintiff,

             v.                                   Civil Action No. 84-3552

UNITED STATES, et al .
               Defendants.                        FILED
                                                 JUN 5, 1986

ORDER

This action is now before the Court On plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. After numerous efforts by plaintiff and the Court the plaintiff is now proceding pro se With no imminent prospect of legal representation. By order of April 9, 1986, plaintiff was required to complete a statement of claim regarding each named defendant Plaintiff affirms that his case is about a conspiracy to deprive [him] of [his] civil rights, in violation of federal law. Statement of Claim (filed April 22,1986) (quoting Memorandum to the Court at 1, filed April 2, 1986). Plaintiff lists each defendant and each act allegedly undertaken by that defendant in furtherance of the alleged conspriacy . This detail provides defendants with the efinite statement required by Fed. R. Civ. p. 8.

Plaintiffs Statement of Claim, as well as the allegations previously found to be potentially meritorious, indicate that plaintiff’s claim involves two discrete issues. Unless good cause is shown, pretrial discovery and trial shall be limited to the following two issues:

(1) Whether any of the named defendants conspired to deprive plaintiff of his civil rights, in violation of federal law; and

(2) Whether any of the defendants individually committed any unconstitutional acts toward plaintiff, specifically whether any defendants "committed unconstitutional excesses in their efforts to arrest plaintiff pursuant to local statutes and DOI regulations." memorandum and Order at 2 (filed June 3, 1985). ("In particular, plaintiff claims that his literature, tools, signs and camera have been improperly seized and destroyed by Park Service and District of Columbia police.") (citations sic original complaint omitted).

Both of these general claims appear potentially moratorious, and warrant further discovery by plaintiff. Plaintiff should be aware, however, that any particular allegation regarding any particular defendant is susceptible to disposition by motion if, on its face, it fails to state a claim against the defendant or if, after discovery, plaintiff is unable to support the alleged act with evidence or testimony.

Plaintiff has now filed two motions for summary judgment. He is unable, however, to establish that the facts necessary to demonstrate defendants' liability are undisputed. Plaintiff's motions are premature. The appropriate next step in this litigation is for the parties to engage in controlled discovery. 'through discovery, plaintiff should attempt to gather facts to support his claims, and to narrow his claims to those he can support. Because plaintiff’s claims involve numerous defendants and he is proceeding pro se, it is irnportant that

discovery be closely supervised. This action will be referred to United States Magistrate Arthur Burnett for supervision of discovery and pretrial proccedings. the Magistrate should review all of plaintiff's discovery requests to ensure that the discovery is reasonably necessary for plaintiff to pursue his case and not unduly burdensome. Depositians should also be taken under the Magistrate's supervision.

Accordingly. it is this 4th day of June. 1986. hereby

ORDERED: that the federal defendants' motion to dismiss (filed Dec. 6, 1985, should be, and hereby is, DENIED, without prejudice to a renewed motion to dismiss regarding particular claims against particular defendants and it is further

ORDERED: that the federal defendants' motion for a more definite statement should be, and hereby is, DENIED as moot; and it is further

ORDERED: that the federal defendants' motion for judgment on the administrative record should be, and hereby is, DENIED as moot, without prejudice to defendants' renewing the motion should the facial constitutionality of the park regulations again become relevant or to defendants' reciting arguments evidence contained in the motion as part of their proof that the adoption of the regulations was not an act in furtherance of a conspiracy to violate plaintiff’s civil rights; and it is further

ORDERED: that plaintiff's motions for summary judgment (filed Jan 30 and May 13, 1986) should be, and hereby are, DENIED without prejudice to a renewed motion after discovery

should it then appear that certain material facts are undisputed; and it is further

ORDERED: that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Q 636(b)(i)(A), this action is referred to a United States Magistrate Arthur Burnett for entry of a scheduling order, supervision of discovery conduct of a pretrial conference, and entry of a pretrial order on or before September 15, 1986; and it is further

ORDERED: that all discovery requests and responses shall be filed on or before August 18, 1986, unless otherwise ordered by the Magistrate consistent with this pretrial Order; and it is further

ORDERED: that all dispositive motions, in order to be considered by the Court, shall be filed on or before August 22, 1986. Hearings on such motion, when necessary, shall be noticed to the parties and held in Courtroom No. 3, U.S. Courthouse, 3rd & Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.; and it is further

ORDERED: that a status call shall be held at 10:00 A.M. on September 25, 1986, in Courtroom No. 3; and it is further

ORDERED: that trial shall commence at 9:30 A.M. on October 20, 19~6, in Courtroom No. 3, to continue for 5 days; and it is further

ORDERED: that each of the parties shall file, on or before September 12, 1386, a trial brief as follows:

1. A statement of the facts which have been stipulated to and are therefore no longer in dispute.

2. A statement of material facts with respect to which there is a genuine controversy.

3. Copies of all exhibits which will be introduced at trial, plaintiffs' exhibits to be marked and indexed numerically, defendants' exhibits to be marked and indexed numerically. Counsel shall obtain from the Courtroom Clerk stickers for premarking exhibits. The original exhibits may be retained by counsel.

4. A list of the exhibits which each party intends to offer into evidence, including notations with respect to each exhibit as to whether the opposing Party (a) objects to authenticity, (b) objects to admissibility (and the basis for the objection). Counsel shall obtain forms for listing exhibits from the Courtroom Clerk.

5. A list of the witnesses each party intends to call at trial (in the order in which they are expected to, testify), a brief summary of the testimony expected from each witness, and the estimated time required for the witness' (a) direct testimony, (b) cross-examination.

6. A statement of qualifications and experience of each expert witness intended to be called at trial, including, where applicable, a notation that the opposing party objects to the qualifications of a particular expert.

7. A narrative statement of all facts proposed to be proven, set forth in simple, declarative sentences. With each statement of fact. there shall be set forth in parentheses the names of witnesses, identified portions of depositions, pleadings, exhibits, stipulations, or other documents to be introduced in proof of such fact.

8. statement of the legal contentions necessary to

establish the party's claim or defense. Such contentions shall be individually, clearly, and concisely stated in separately numbered paragraphs. With each paragraph there shall be set forth citation to legal (authorities supporting the legal contention asserted, with an asterisk preceding each authority principally relied upon. the text of any state statutory provision, or of any federal or state regulation principally relied upon, shall be set out in full in an appendix. Copies of any non-federal cases principally relied upon, any administrative decision principally relied upon, or the relevant pages of any other. legal authority principally relied upon, shall also be provided in a separate appendix.

The party's requested voir dire questions.

The requested jury instructions. Instructions found in the Standardized Civil Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia be identified by the number of the instruction. (Each counsel shall bring to the trial his or her own copy of the Standardized Civil Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia.) All other requested instructions shall be numbered and set forth in full text, with one requested instruction per-page.

Any facts, legal contention, claim or relief, or defense (in whole or in part), affiirnative matter, voir dire question, or jury instruction, not set forth as provided Above shall he deemed abandoned, uncontroverted, or withdrawn (as may be appropriate), notwithstanding the contents of any pleadings or papers filed in the action, except for- matters of which a party could not have been, aware in the excersise of reasonable diligence at the time

the trial brief was filed failure of the party's opponent to cooperate with respect: to the objections required by paragraphs 4 and 6, or the period for cross-examination as required by paragraph 5 shall be brought to the attention of the Court at least five days prior to the scheduled start of the trial.

If refinement of the facts or issues in the course of preparing these trial briefs stimulates interest in a settlement, the Court is available at short notice in writing to assist in that process.

(signed Louis F. Oberdorfer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

JUNE 4, 1986

Contents

Case Listing --- Proposition One ---- Peace Park