Concepcion Picciotto
P.O. Box 4931
Washington, D.C. 20009

April 4, 1992

William Suter
Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20543

RE: Thomas v. Reagan, et. al., 92-6732

Dear Sir:

I hope that you will assist me in correcting a minor misunderstanding which is causing me a relatively major problem.

Yesterday, in a letter addressed to William Thomas, from the Court's In Forma Pauperis Department (enclosed), I learned that I have not been added as a party "to the petition at this time," because an application was "granted on October 14, 1992 extending the time for (Thomas) to file (his) petition."

This information came as an unexpected disappointment for two reasons. First, from what Thomas had told me, the Clerk's Office said that I was not listed as a party to the case simply because my motion to proceed in forma pauperis had been misplaced, a mistake that Thomas said would be easy to correct. Second, I had not viewed this as "William Thomas'" petition. I thought it was a joint petition from a judgement in our joint case.

From the wording of Rule 13, "(a) petition of certiorari to review a judgement in any case," it appeared that one motion for an extension of time would be sufficient for filing a joint petition to review the judgement of a single case (U.S. App. 91-5304) which Thomas and I have jointly pursued since 1988.

In the sense that my name is already on the signature page of "the petition" presently before the Court, it would be very helpful if you don't view this as a question of "adding" me "to the petition." Instead, you could simply recognize that I am already a party by virtue of my signature on the petition.

I am not asking you to stretch the rules. I am just asking you to apply a reasonable interpretation, an interpretation that will insure I am not deprived "meaningful access to the courts," which was also the basis of the application, granted by this Court on October 14, 1992, for an extension of time to file the petition.




Concepcion Picciotto