UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
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
RONALD WILSON REAGAN, et al.
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
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
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
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
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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 28, 1988
Joyce Hens Green
JOYCE HENS GREEN
United States District Judge