DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COURT OF APPEALS
REC’D FEB 24, 1987
Appeal No. 8 6-678
IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
WILLIAM THOMAS, ET AL, Appellants,
v.
WASHINGTON TIMES , ET AL, Appellees.
Appeal From the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia
Civil Division
W. Edward Morgan
Bar No. 280800
Supervising Attorney
Timothy Gresback
L.S. No. 4712
Student Counsel for
Appellants
Antioch School of Law
2633 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 265-9500
________________________________
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. Factual Background
B. Procedural Background
____________________________
2/In this motion the plaintiffs below are generally referred to collectively as "appellant" or "Thomas."
3/The pro se complaint further alleged that the Washington Times sent Masty to participate in, and report on, the "raid" against plaintiffs in order to make good "copy" for an article subsequently printed in the Washington Times.
II. ARGUMENT
4/After unsuccessful attempts to obtain free legal assistance both in the trial court and this Court, Thomas was forced to proceed without the aid of counsel. Thomas sought help from the undersigned only two (2) days prior to oral argument.
5/Judge Hannon's order simply states:
That section further provides that if such rules modify the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, they will not take effect until approved by this Court.
The Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, implicitly, permit indigents to proceed pro se.6/ Consequently, there are two classes of litigants: those who proceed with the aid of counsel and the indigent pro se litigant who cannot do so.
Unless other safeguards are provided, this classification impinges on the ability of the pro se litigant to vindicate his or her rights. The Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure were promulgated and adopted by and for those trained in the law; the rules were not written for use by the layperson, but the lawyer. For example, it cannot be expected that the indigent should understand the technicalities of service of process pursuant to Super. Ct. R. 4. To a pro se indigent like Thomas, the difference between serving the newspaper itself rather than its corporate owner is not apparent. The appreciation of such a legal technicality should not be demanded from indigents.
One alternative to the present system -- which discriminates against indigent litigants -- would be to appoint counsel in civil cases. Such is the practice in
6/The rules are silent as to whether an indigent must proceed with a lawyer. If such were the case, the rules would clearly violate the constitution. Requiring all indigent plaintiffs to be represented, without making counsel available as of right, would violate the fundamental right of access to the court. See Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971).
7/ See Judge Swygert's article, Should Indigent Civil Litigants in the Federal Courts Have a Right to Counsel?, 39 Washington & Lee L. Rev. 1267, 1270 (1982).
8/ The Matthews test involves:
9/ E.g., Gooding v. United States, 513 A.2d 1320 (D.C. 1986) (procedures to be followed by trial court on entry and withdrawal of guilty plea).
10/ M.A.P. V. Ryan, 385 A.2d 310 (D.C. 1971) (en banc)(policy decision to ensure the orderly administration of justice, holding that one division of the court cannot overrule another).
11/ In re Kersey, No. 84-739 (D.C. Jan. 28, 1987) (setting standards governing discipline of alcoholic attorneys).
_____________________________
12/ NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 429-30 (1963) (upholding the right of the NAACP to refer individuals to an attorney). (footnote continued on next page)
grievances against the Washington Times.
_______________________
(footnote continued from previous page)
13/ Cosgrove v. United States, 411 A.2d 57, 58 (D.C. 1980) (because petition presented pro se, more relaxed view of pleadings required).
14/ Bettis v. United States, 325 A.2d 190, 193, n.1 (D.C. 1974) (standards applicable to pro se motions are considerably more lax than standards applied where counsel is involved).
15/ Hudson v. Hardy, 412 F.2d 1091, 1094 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (trial court, prior to granting summary judgment against pro se litigant, should have, at a "bare minimum," advised appellant of requirements of summary judgment rule).
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Tim Gresback
W. Edward Morgan Timothy Gresback
Bar No. 280800 L.S. No. 4712
Supervising Attorney Student Counsel for
Appellants
Antioch School of Law
2633 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 265-9500
No. 86-678
WILLIAM THOMAS, et. al.,
Appellants,
v.
WASHINGTON TIMES, INC.,
Appellee.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS' MOTION TO STAY THE MANDATE AND REARGUE THE CASE
The record above, the cases cited in the accompanying Motion, D.C. App. R. 27, and the inherent power of the Court.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Tim Gresback
W. Edward Morgan Timothy Gresback
Bar No. 280800 L.S. No. 4712
Supervising Attorney Student Counsel for
Appellants
Antioch School of Law
2633 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
APPEALS 202 APPEALS 265-9500
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
No. 86-678
WILLIAM THOMAS, et al. Appellants,
v. CA 1125-86
WASHINGTON TIMES, INC., Appellee.
BEFORE: Newman and Steadman, Associate Judges, and Pair, Senior Judge.
O R D E R
PER CURIAM
Copies to:
W. Edward Morgan, Esquire
Timothy Gresback, Student Counsel
Antioch School of Law
2633 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
Allen V, Farber, Esquire
Lucinda J. Bach, Esquire
Schwalb, Donnenfeld, Bray & Silber, P.C.
Suite 300 East
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
Washington, DC 20007
/s/Timothy Gresback
Timothy Gresback