March 7, 1988
CONCEPCION PICCIOTTO, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 87-3290-LFO DONALD MODEL, et. al.,
On February 25, 1988 plaintiffs moved this Court to reconsider its Order of January 26, 1988 wherein the Court dismissed this action as moot. Apart from the fact that plaintiffs have not identified under which rule provision they are attempting to proceed 1/ they have manifestly failed to identify any reasons why this Court's considered judgment that this case is moot was an incorrect conclusion. In light of plaintiff's clear failure to advance a sound basis for the Court to alter or amend its earlier decision the motion should be denied.
Accordingly, defendants urge the Court to deny the motion. A proposed Order is attached.
Respectfully submitted,
TIMOTHY J. REARDON, III, DC Bar #141903
Principal Assistant United States Attorney
1/ Plaintiffs have also sought leave to file out of time their motion to Reconsider--a fact that indicates plaintiffs probably have Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) in mind since motions for reconsideration are due within ten days of judgment under that provision. Defendants note that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), enlargements of time are not permitted for Rule 59(e) motions,
JOHN D. BATES, DC Bar #934927
Assistant United States Attorney
MICHAEL L. MARTINEZ DC Bar #347310
Assistant United States Attorney
I hereby certify that this 7th day of March, 1988, I sent one copy of the foregoing Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider, via first class U.S. mail to the following
plaintiffs pro se:
Concepcion Picciotto, pro se
P.O. Box 4931
Washington, D.C. 20008Robert Dorrough, pro se
P.O. Box 27217
Washington, D.C. 20038William & Ellen Thomas, pro se
1440 N Street, N.W. #410
Washington, D. C. 20005
MICHAEL L. MARTINEZ DC BAR #347310
Assistant United States
Attorney
Room 4822 Judiciary Cetter
555 Fourth Street, NW.
Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 272-9258
CONCEPCION PICCIOTTO, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 87-3290-LFO DONALD MODEL, et. al.,
UPON CONSIDERATION of plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider, defendants' opposition thereto and the entire record in this matter, it is by the Court this __ day of _______, 1988, hereby ,
ORDERED, that plaintiffs' motion should be and hereby is DENIED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE