MARY HUDDLE AND                                NOV 2 8 1988 
PHILIP JOSEPH, et al.                       CLERK, U S. DISTRICT COURT
              Plaintiffs,                     DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

         v.                         Civil Action No. 88-3130



Plaintiffs Mary Huddle, Philip Joseph, Sunrise Harmony, and William and Ellen Thomas 1/ filed the instant complaint, pro se, on October 27, 1988. Attached to the complaint was a motion for all five individual plaintiffs to proceed in forma pauperis. On November 23, 1988, immediately prior to the Thanksgiving holiday, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, accompanied by an amended complaint, and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The amended complaint adds two individual plaintiffs, Scott Galindez and Concepcion Picciotto. It also adds defendants United States Secret Service, Michael Canfield, and the District of Columbia.

1/ The actual caption of the complaint names Peace Park Anti-Nuclear Vigil as a plaintiff. William and Ellen Thomas appear to be the leaders of this organization. See Complaint, 4.


Although a thorough examination of plaintiffs' pleadings reveals that they have made a concerted and commendable effort to file proper, coherent papers, it nonetheless is apparent that there are numerous deficiencies which prevent the Court from taking any immediate action with respect to plaintiffs' motions. For instance, in the Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and Service of Process, the motion is signed by Concepcion Picciotto, and is accompanied by a declaration of indigence in support of the request signed by Concepcion Picciotto; yet the proposed order refers to "Scott Galindez's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis" and he has not filed a declaration of indigence. The Court is unable to tell, and cannot guess, from these pleadings whether each plaintiff seeks forma pauperis status; if so, each must file the appropriate declaration of indigence.

Furthermore, plaintiffs' amended complaint, which they request the U.S. Marshals Service to serve upon defendants, does not make it clear exactly who the defendants are. Its caption refers to "Ronald Wilson Reagan, et al.". It is unclear to whom the "et al." refers. Although plaintiffs request that service be effectuated by the U.S. Marshals Service, plaintiffs have served defendants Deputy Chief Langstom and Lynn Herring. 2/ The Court is at a complete loss to understand why service has been made as to some defendants but cannot be made as to the other defendants. Plaintiffs have left it entirely unclear as to which defendants they wish the U.S. Marshals Service to serve. In sum, despite plaintiffs' good faith attempts, their pleadings in this matter are in such disarray that the Court cannot immediately rule on any of plaintiffs' motions. Therefore, it is accordingly hereby

2/ See Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt of Summons and Complaint by Mail filed November 14, 1988.


ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a scheduling and status conference on Monday, December 5, 1988 at 9:00 A.M. this conference, the parties shall be prepared to address the following:

1. Plaintiffs are strongly urged to select one individual from amongst them to be spokesperson before the Court for management purposes. If plaintiffs do select a spokesperson, they shall submit a statement to the Court, signed by all plaintiffs, indicating that spokesperson speaks on behalf of all plaintiffs. However, if plaintiffs wish to proceed individually, which will undoubtedly delay the overall process, this must be made clearly known to the Court.

2. Plaintiffs shall state exactly who the defendants are so that the U.S. Marshals service, who is being asked by plaintiffs to effectuate service, knows who the "et al " in the amended complaint refers to. Each defendant must be clearly specified.

3. As with all litigants, plaintiffs and defendants are directed not to telephone chambers to ascertain the status of this case. As example, William Thomas telephoned chambers on November 23, 1988 to advise that a motion for temporary restraining order was filed that date, and again on November 28, 1988, to inquire as to the status of the matter. All further


communications shall be made in writing and a courtesy copy of each pleading filed in the Clerk's Office shall be sent to chambers.

4. The U.S. Attorney is to be prepared to advised whether it will accept service for the named defendants (except for the District of Columbia and Michael Canfield) or whether there must be individual service by the U.S. Marshals Service.

5. The scheduling and status conference will not address the merits of plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The Court will, if appropriate, set a date for such hearing(s) at said conference.


November 28, 1988

Joyce Hens Green
United States District Judge