THOMAS v. REAGAN

USDC Cr. No. 84-3552

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WILLIAM THOMAS, et al    
     Plaintiff Pro Se    
                         
versus                          CA 84-3552
                                Judge Louis Oberdorfer
UNITED STATES, et al     
     Defendants

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXPEDITED TRANSCRIPT
AND MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO THE COURTS

BACKGROUND

Pursuant to Judge Oberdorfer's Order, Magistrate Arthur Burnett heard arguments on the Motions for Summary Judgment of all defendants on November 14, 1986.

On or about November 17, 1986 plaintiffs filed a Motion with the Magistrate requesting that plaintiffs be provided with a copy of the transcript from that hearing. That Motion was unopposed by any defendants, and the Magistrate never bothered to respond to it either.

On December 16, 1986 plaintiffs made telephone inquiries in an attempt to obtain a copy of that transcript (see Declaration of William Thomas In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion For Transcript And Meaningful Access To The Courts, attached hereto at I). Those inquiries were to no avail.

During a discussion of preliminary matters at the deposition of Manus J. Fish held on August 21, 1986, Thomas raised the question of how he might obtain transcripts of the various depo- sitions. It certainly seems to plaintiffs the Magistrate indicated that, while there was no provision under 28 USC 636(b) by which plaintiffs might obtain transcripts of depositions, in the case of motions hearings "the arguments you make and arguments government counsel make, you can get a transcript of that...." (See pages 2 and 3 "unofficial Thomas transcript," attached hereto at II, compare Thomas Declaration, attached hereto at I, para. 10.)

ARGUMENT

The Supreme Court has held that indigent litigants "have a Constitutional right of access to the courts" (Brandeis v. Smith, 438 US 817 (1977)), "and that this access must be adequate, effective, and meaningful." (Sills v. Bureau of Prisons, US App DC 84-5844, filed May 14, 1985 Slip Opinion at 7.)

The Magistrate has spun a web of words, to plaintiffs' detriment. Some of the gaping holes in that web are apparent in his words during the arguments made on November 14, 1986. Plaintiffs believe that to deny them a copy of the November 14, 1986 transcript is to prejudice them beyond question and to subvert justice.

CONCLUSION

Although plaintiffs pro se cannot immediately put their fingers on a specific cite, they believe that somewhere in the U.S. Code there must be a provision for providing such documents to those without money, for the alternative would reduce "equality before the law" to "dollars and cents."

Therefore plaintiffs move this Court to Order that a copy ofthe November 14, 1986 transcript be provided gratis. A proposed Order is attached. Plaintiffs request that this Order be expedited so as to cause as little delay as possible in the preparation of their Appeal.

Respectfully submitted this17th day of December, 1986.

____________________________________

William Thomas, Plaintiff Pro Se

1440 N Street, N.W. Apt. 410

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202)-462-3542

____________________________________

Ellen Thomas, Plaintiff Pro Se

Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil

P.O. Box 27217, D.C., 20038

(202) 462-3542

Contents

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