MARY HUDDLE and PHILIP JOSEPH, et. al., )
)
Plaintiffs, Pro Se, )
) CA 88-3130-JHG
versus )
) Judge Joyce Hens Green
RONALD WILSON REAGAN, et. al., )
________________________________________)
Plaintiffs believe that, by 28 USC 1915, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, they are entitled to have the U.S. Marshal's Service preform the task of effectuating service. Therefore plaintiffs would ask the Court to stipulate that a failing on plaintiffs' part to complete service on the remaining unserved defendants shall not prejudice plaintiffs in a defense motion to dismiss for late or improper service of process.
The basis for this objection is more fully explained in an accompanying Memorandum.
A proposed Order is attached.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Scott Galindez, pro se
P.O. Box 27217
Washington, D.C. 20038
____________________________
Concepcion Picciotto, pro se
Post Office Box 4931
Washington, D.C. 20008
_____________________________
Philip Joseph, pro se
P.O. Box 27217
Washington, D.C. 20038
___________________________
Sunrise S. Harmony, pro se
P.O. Box 27217
Washington, D.C. 20038
_____________________________
William Thomas, pro se
Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil
1440 N Street, N.W. Apt. 410
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-462-0757
_____________________________
Ellen Thomas, pro se
Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil
1440 N Street, N.W. Apt. 410
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-462-0757
On December 6, 1988 the Court memorialized the rulings made at the status conference of December 5th, noting that the government and the Court would have no objection if plaintiffs seek to effectuate service on the aforesaid remaining unserved defendants.
The United States Attorney was unable to state whether the United States would undertake to represent all the federally employed defendants. Ostensibly to spare the government the cost of effecting service, Mr. Martinez asked the Court to direct plaintiffs themselves to effect service of process upon: Richard Robbins, Randy Myers, Manus J. Fish, James Lindsey, Sandra Alley, Captain Barrett, Lieutenant Hugh Irwin, Private Kevin Fornshill, Private Leslie Waite and Private Michelle Berkowitz.
Plaintiffs objected on two points 1) they are parties to the action, and 2) they are indigent. Plaintiffs hereby note a third objectional point; "security." The Court may recall that Mr. Martinez's own representations with respect to accepting service of pleadings from plaintiffs included some purportations of "security" concerns. In attempting to serve the above named defendants with copies of the complaint, it is likely that plaintiffs will encounter these same "security" concerns.
By reason of religious discipline plaintiffs attempt to be amenable. Therefore, notwithstanding their objection, plaintiffs did amenably agree to try to effect service themselves.
However, this situation presents a potentially serious legal problem. Plaintiffs anticipate difficulty in serving some of the remaining defendants, and it is surely not inconceivable that at some point the government will move for dismissal because service was not made in a timely manner.
Owing to religious beliefs, plaintiffs are monetarily destitute. Money is a concept with which plaintiffs are struggling. Plaintiffs consider money to be a very destructive idea which competes with God for plaintiffs energies. They do not solicit any money. Occasionally small sums of money are given to them. These little monies go almost exclusively toward communications materials -- most notably photocopies. There are cases which state that "minimal amenities ... need not be surrendered in order to litigate in forma pauperis." E.g., Souder v. McGuire, 516 F.2d 820, In re Smith, 600 F.2d 714, and the expense of reproducing the necessary documents burdens, more than plaintiffs amenities, their ability to communicate by forcing them to divert their meager resources from literature on topics of broad public concern and into legal documents.
Respectfully submitted in support of
all plaintiffs' objection,
_____________________________
William Thomas
Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil
Plaintiff, pro se
1440 N Street, N.W. Apt. 410
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-462-0757
MARY HUDDLE and PHILIP JOSEPH, et. al., )
)
Plaintiffs, Pro Se, )
) CA 88-3130-JHG
versus )
) Judge Joyce Hens Green
RONALD WILSON REAGAN, et. al., )
________________________________________)
I William Thomas, hereby state that, on this __th day of December, 1988 I caused a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Objection to the Arrangement for Service of Process to be hand delivered to the office of Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Martinez, at Judiciary Square, 555 4th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, and Arthur Burger Assistant Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C.
_____________________________
William Thomas
MARY HUDDLE and PHILIP JOSEPH, et. al., )
)
Plaintiffs, Pro Se, )
) CA 88-3130-JHG
versus )
) Judge Joyce Hens Green
RONALD WILSON REAGAN, et. al., )
________________________________________)
ORDER
Upon consideration of the plaintiffs' Objections to the Arrangements for Service of Process, and any response thereto, this ___ day of ________________, 198__, it shall be and hereby is:
ORDERED, that, at the government's suggestion, plaintiffs may attempt to effect service of process upon Richard Robbins, Randy Myers, Manus J. Fish, James Lindsey, Sandra Alley, Captain Barrett, Lieutenant Hugh Irwin, Private Kevin Fornshill, Private Leslie Waite and Private Michelle Berkowitz, and, whereas this arrangement for service is predicated on both the government's suggestion and failure to stipulte whether the United States will undertake representation of these named defendants, it is further
ORDERED, that any time limitations for service of the complaint and process be and hereby are tolled, and plaintiffs shall suffer no prejudice to their litigation of this matter as a result of any failure on their part to effect service of process on the aforesaid defendants.
__________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE