1. Plaintiff brought this lawsuit in order to enforce, in the
least confrontational manner possible, the recently enacted
United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") regulations
concerning noncommercial group uses of the national forests, 36
C.F.R. Part 251, Subpart B ("group use regulations"), and to
obtain a nation-wide injunction against violation of the group
1
use regulations by the defendants, the Rainbow Family of Living
Light, et al. ("Rainbow Family"). Plaintiff specifically chose to
seek a civil injunction in lieu of other, more intrusive
sanctions, such as criminal charges or preliminary civil relief,
to avoid unnecessary confrontation or a multiplicity of cases.
2. The Rainbow Family has a long history of challenging the validity
of the group use regulations under the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution, and knowingly violated the group use
regulations at issue during the January-February 1996 Rainbow
Family gathering in the Osceola National Forest ("Osceola
gathering") by refusing to obtain a permit for the gathering when
it exceeded 74 participants. Since the Osceola gathering, Rainbow
Family members have continued to gather in violation of the group
use regulations in several different national forests around the
country. It was plaintiff's intent to seek a resolution of this
long-standing dispute in a manner which minimized the burdens on
the Court and the parties while simultaneously presenting the
possibility of a nation-wide ruling.
3. Despite plaintiff's attempt, through this lawsuit, to resolve
this long-standing dispute with the defendants over the
constitutionality of USDA's group use regulations in a
cooperative manner, the defendants have chosen to ignore or not
take seriously the litigation at bar. Plaintiff succeeded in
serving only eighteen of the thirty-three named defendants due to
significant practical difficulties in serving the named
2
defendants in this case. [1] Fifteen of the defendants who
were served chose to disregard the complaint and did not submit a
response within the prescribed time period. Of the three
defendants who submitted responses to the complaint, all
proceeded pro se and submitted responses which are inadequate, as
a legal matter, to provide a basis to pursue the goals of this
litigation.
4. The refusal of those defendants who have been served to obey
this Court's summons should not be tolerated under any
circumstances. As to them, a default judgment is warranted.
5. As to the three defendants who have submitted responses to
the Complaint, it is apparent from their filings and pro se
status that they will not provide the means to resolve
plaintiff's long-standing dispute with the Rainbow Family. At a
minimum, because the three defendants who have submitted
responses to the complaint are not represented by counsel, it is
doubtful that these parties would fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class as required under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a)(4) in order to certify the defendant class.
[1 Although several of the named defendants were served at the
Osceola gathering, most of the named defendants have since
dispersed across the United States. Since that gathering ended in
February, the U.S. Marshal's Service has attempted to locate and
serve the remaininQ named defendants in several states around the
country. The fact that many members of the Rainbow Family,
including several of the named defendants, use aliases in lieu of
proper names, has added to the practical difficulties associated
with identifying and serving some of the named defendants in this
case.]
3
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests the Court:
(A) to enter a default judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. Rule 55(a) against all named defendants who have been served
but have failed to file a responsive pleadings to the
complaint; specifically, to enjoin each of these individuals
from attending, conducting or participating in any way in a
gathering within the national forests in the State of Florida
and elsewhere in the United States in violation of the group
use regulations; [2]
(B) to dismiss the above-captioned matter without
Frejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41(a)(2) as to the
named defendants who have submitted responsive pleadings to the
complaint. [3]
(C) to dismiss this matter without prejudice as to all
remaining named defendants.
[2 Specifically, plaintiff seeks a default judgment under
Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 55(a) with respect to the following named
defendants: James Pirtle, William D. Adams, Eric Eastridge, James
Cappiello, Cari D. James, Robert J. Fuller, Rachel L. Vaughn,
Sheila L. Gilmer, David Bessel, "Jose," "8ob Jones," and "nJo
Bears."]
[3 Specifically, plaintiff moves to dismiss this action
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41(a) (2) with respect to the
following defendants: "Wakeem" (a/k/a William L. Barrie), Curtis
Tiedt, and "Bullwinkle" (a/k/a Stephen Williams). In the event
that the Court denies this motion, plaintiff requests an
extension of time of ten (10) days from the date of the Court's
order to respond to the pleadings filed by defendant "Wakeem,"
a/k/a William L. Barrie, on May 13, 1996.]
4
Respectfully submitted,
FRANK W. HUNGER
Assistant Attorney General
CHARLES R. WILSON
United States Attorney
REGINALD LUST
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Florida Bar No. 0750069
200 West Forsyth Street Room 700
Jacksonville, FL 32201
THOMAS W. MILLET
ANJALI A. ASHLEY
U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division
901 E Street, N.W., Room 101
(202) 514-3368
Attorneys for Plaintiff
OF COUNSEL:
Leslie Lagomarcino
Office of the General Counsel
U.S. Department of Agriculture
14th & Independence Ave., S.W. Room 2047
Washington, D.C. 20250-1400
Washington, D.C. 20250-1400
Case Contents | Rainbow Cases | Rainbow Regulation Page
Rainbow Home Page