MARY HUDDLE, et al., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action 88-3130 JHG RONALD WILSON REAGAN, et al., Defendant.
1/ Five substantive motions are fully briefed and awaiting decision from the Court: (1) the federal defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed December 21, 1988 (all parties agreed that motion would constitute a response to plaintiffs' original request for preliminary injunction and that plaintiffs" request should be deemed one for a permanent injunction. See December 6, 1988
(footnote continued)
(footnote continued from previous page)
Order); (2) the District defendants' similar motion; (3) plaintiffs' February 8, 1989 Motion for Sanctions against Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA") Michael L. Martinez; (4) plaintiffs' October 18, 1989 Motion to Compel Discovery; and (5) the federal defendants' October 25, 1989 Motion for Protective Order
foot long torch of the kind popular at Hawaiian luaus. Upon observing the lit torch, the Park Police decided it was violative of 36 C.F.R. §2.13 (1988). 2/ They advised Thomas of the violations, seized the torch, extinguished it and telephoned Assistant Solicitor of Interior Randolph Myers at home for a legal opinion regarding the torch. Myers advised that a photograph be taken, that an incident report be prepared and that the unlit torch be returned to Thomas. See Dec. of Randolph J. Meyers, pgs. 1-3 (attached hereto as Exhibit 1). Upon reviewing the incident report and photograph, Myers concluded that Thomas' torch was violative of federal regulations. Id., Is 4-5. 3/ The conclusion that Thomas' torch was violative of Federal regulations was plainly correct. 36 C.F.R. §2.13 is designed, as are other park regulations, to protect park resources and to
2/ 36 C.F.R. §2.13 (1988) states in pertinent part: (a) the following are prohibited:
(1) Lighting or maintaining a fire, except in designated areas or receptacles and under conditions that may be established by the Superintendent.
* * *
(3) Lighting, tending or using a fire, stove, or lantern in a manner that threatens, causes damage to, or results in the burning of property, real property or park resources, or creates a public safety hazard.
3/ A copy of the photograph and the incident reports are attached to Myers' Declaration. The original of the photograph can be made available for the Court's review.
ensure safety. Thomas' torch was unsafe. Indeed the Park Police incident report notes that while the torch was lit in Lafayette Park the flame was 8-10 inches high and the flame was producing lit ashes or sparks that were falling lit to the ground. This presented a safety hazard to passers-by and the demonstrators themselves as well as [to] their belongings.
so. Myers Dec., is 6-8; Thomas Dec., 1 31. This conduct by the Park Police was, again, appropriate and legally correct as it fell squarely within the bounds of the applicable regulation.
188 (D.C. Cir. 1988). The Park Police declarations explain that the officers' intent was solely to enforce and ensure compliance with federal regulations and the officers specifically deny using any profanity and deny making any threats. See attached Exhibits 2 and 3. These declarations fully illustrate that the Park Police did nothing improper on the evenings in question.
or stir." Rouse in turn is defined as "to cause to come out of a state of sleep, repose, unconsciousness, etc.; wake." Plaintiffs -- and Thomas specifically -- by use of the term "rouse" effectively admit that they were violating the camping regulation on each identified occasion during September 2-7, 1989. Thus, plaintiff's objections to the Park Police action in rousting sleepers in the Park should be summarily rejected.
plaintiffs' argument that the regulations are unconstitutional as applied. U.S. v. Thomas, 864 F.2d at 194-99; Thomas v. U.S., 696 F. Supp. at 706-11. The federal defendants have, moreover, more fully addressed the constitutionality of the regulations in their memorandum filed December 19, 1988 -- to which the Court is respectfully referred. (see pp. 26-30).
4/ To the extent plaintiffs urge the Court to modify or tinker with the regulations, that request must be rejected. The Park Service, not the Courts, is in the best position to determine how best to manage the resources of the Park. Clark v. CCNV, 468 U.S. at 299. The Court has no power fine-tune the regulations so long as they constitutionality. CCNV v. Kerrigan, 865 F.2d at 390; Juluke v. Hodel, 811 F.2d 1553, 1560 (D.C. Cir. 1987); White House Vigil v. Clark, 746 F.2d 1518, 1529, 1541 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
Respectfully submitted,
//s// Jay B. Stephens
JAY B. STEPHENS, DC Bar
#177840
United States Attorney
//s//John D. Bates
JOHN D. BATES DC Bar #934927
Assistant United States Attorney
//s/Michael L. Martinez
MICHAEL L. MARTINEZ, DC Bar #347310
Assistant United States Attorney
MARY HUDDLE, et al., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action 88-3130 JHG RONALD WILSON REAGAN, et al., Defendant.
UPON CONSIDERATION of plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, the federal defendants' opposition thereto and the entire record in this matter, it is by the Court this __ day of _________1989, hereby
ORDERED, that the motion is DENIED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MICHAEL L. MARTINEZ
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Judiciary Center Building
555 4th Street, NW.
Room 4810
Washington, D.C. 20001
ARTHUR BURGER
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Third Floor, District Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.
Washington, D.C. 20004
WILLIAM THOMAS
1440 N Street, NW.
#410
Washington, D.C. 20005
William Thomas,
1440 N Street, NW., #410,
Washington, D.C. 20005
and I mailed one copy, via first class U.S. mail to
Arthur Burger,
Assistant Corporation Counsel,
Third Floor District Building,
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20004//s// Michael L. Martinez
MICHAEL L. MARTINEZ , DC Bar #347310
Assistant United States Attorney
Judiciary Center Building
555 4th Street, NW Room 4126
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 272-9195