Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Edward Jacob Lang, et al., Petitioners v. Daniel Thau, et al.

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS AND ORDERS

Order, U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit

(February 25, 2025) ............................................ 1a

Order, U.S. District Court for the District

of Columbia (June 19, 2024) .............................. 4a

Order to Dismiss Without Prejudice,

U.S. District Court for the District of

Columbia (April 30, 2024) ................................ 11a

Order to Show Cause, U.S. District

Court for the District of Columbia

(April 15, 2024) ................................................. 13a

DOCKET REPORTS

Docket, U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia ......................................... 15a

Docket, U.S. District Court,

District of Columbia ......................................... 22a

OTHER DOCUMENT

Government Motion for Summary Affirmance

filed in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

(October 7, 2024) .............................................. 32a

App.1a

ORDER, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

(FEBRUARY 25, 2025)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

________________________

EDWARD JACOB LANG, ET AL.,

Appellants,

v.

DANIEL THAU, SARGEANT, METROPOLITAN

POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL.,

Appellees.

________________________

No. 24-5192

September Term, 2024

1:24-cv-00295-DLF

Before: CHILDS, PAN, and GARCIA,

Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion for summary

affirmance, the pro se opposition led by appellant

Edward Jacob Lang, and the reply, it is

ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that

this appeal be dismissed for lack of prosecution as

to the appellants other than Lang. See D.C. Cir.

App.2a

Rule 38. No appearance has been entered and no

filings have been made on their behalf since this

appeal was docketed. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for

summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the

parties’ positions are so clear as to warrant summary

action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley,

819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The

district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing

this case without prejudice after receiving no response

to its order to show cause why the case should not

be dismissed for failure to comply with Local Civil

Rule 5.1(c)(1). See Peterson v. Archstone Cmties. LLC,

637 F.3d 416, 418 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (explaining that

this court reviews for abuse of discretion the

district court’s exercise of its “inherent power to

dismiss a case sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to

prosecute or otherwise comply with a court order”);

Texas v. United States, 798 F.3d 1108, 1113 (D.C.

Cir. 2015) (“We review the district court’s decision

enforcing its local rules for abuse of discretion.”).

The district court likewise did not abuse its

discretion in denying appellants’ motion to

reinstate the complaint under either Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b), see Morrissey v.

Mayorkas, 17 F.4th 1150, 1162 (D.C. Cir. 2021),

particularly in light of serious questions raised by

the record as to whether all of the named plaintiffs

consented to participate in this litigation and whether

a forged signature was used in the pleadings.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition

will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold

issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after

resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition

App.3a

for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C.

Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

/s/ Clifton B. Cislak

Clerk

BY: /s/ Selena R. Gancasz

Deputy Clerk

App.4a

ORDER, U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

(JUNE 19, 2024)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

________________________

EDWARD JACOB LANG, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DANIEL THAU, Sergeant, Metropolitan Police

Department, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________

No. 24-cv-295 (DLF)

Before: Dabney L. FRIEDRICH,

United States District Judge.

ORDER

A group of participants in the January 6, 2021 riot

at the United States Capitol brought this pro se suit

against officers of the U.S. Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police Department for alleged injuries sustained

during the riot. On April 15, 2024, the Court warned

the plaintiffs that they had not complied with Local

Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1), which requires a pro se plaintiff to

provide his address and telephone number in an

initial filing. Specifically, the lead plaintiff Edward

App.5a

Jacob Lang listed a noncurrent address, which failed

to reflect that he is presently imprisoned, and provided

an incorrect telephone number. The plaintiffs failed

to cure this defect before the deadline, and the Court

accordingly dismissed the case without prejudice on

April 30, 2024. A week later, Stefanie Lambert entered

an appearance on behalf of the plaintiffs and filed a

Motion to Reinstate Complaint, Dkt. 11. The Court

also received an email from counsel for William Robert

Norwood, an alleged plaintiff in this case. Mr. Norwood’s

counsel represents that his “name and alleged signature

is being used” “fraudulently, and without his consent,

knowledge, or authorization.” For the reasons that

follow, the Court will deny the plaintiffs’ motion to

reinstate.

“[T]he Federal Rules do not include a motion to

reinstate a case,” but the D.C. Circuit has construed

such motions as arising under Rules 59(e) and 60(b).

Morrissey v. Mayorkas, 17 F.4th 1150, 1158 (D.C.

Cir. 2021) (Rule 59(e)); see United States v. 8 Gilcrease

Lane, Quincy, Fla. 32351, 638 F.3d 297, 301 (D.C.

Cir. 2011) (Rule 60(b)). The timing of such a motion

dictates which Rule applies. If the movant seeks

relief within twenty-eight days of the challenged

ruling, Rule 59(e) applies. See Slate v. ABC, 12 F.

Supp. 3d 30, 37 (D.D.C. 2013); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

Outside that window, Rule 60(b) applies. See Slate,

12 F. Supp. 3d at 37. Here, both parties assume that

Rule 60(b) is the relevant standard, but the plaintiffs’

motion was filed on May 6, 2024, six days after the

Court’s April 30, 2024 order dismissing this action.

As such, Rule 59(e) appears to apply. But whichever

standard governs, the plaintiffs’ motion fails.

App.6a

To start, the plaintiffs cannot satisfy Rule 59(e).

“A Rule 59(e) motion is discretionary and need not

be granted unless the district court finds that there is

an intervening change of controlling law, the availability

of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error

or prevent manifest injustice.” Cira/sky v. CIA, 355

F.3d 661, 671 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (cleaned up). The

plaintiffs raise no intervening change in law nor

new evidence not previously available. Their motion

thus appears to hinge on the need to correct “a clear

error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id. To constitute

“clear error,” a final judgment “must be dead wrong,”

Nanko Shipping, USA v. Alcoa, Inc., 118 F. Supp.

3d 372, 375 (D.D.C. 2015) (cleaned up), and “manifest

injustice” is “more than just a clear and certain

prejudice to the moving party, but also a result that

is fundamentally unfair in light of governing law,”

Slate, 12 F. Supp. 3d at 35-36.

The plaintiffs cannot pass this bar. Nowhere in

their motion do they suggest the Court improperly

applied the letter of the Local Civil Rules, thereby

forfeiting any “clear error” argument. Instead, they

emphasize that “Plaintiff Lang was incarcerated, in

solitary confinement” and was thus “unable to be reached

by anyone, much less provide a phone number.” Pls.’

Mot. to Reinstate Compl. ¶ 13. The “[l]ack of a phone

number . . . was totally irrelevant” because “there

[was] no guarantee that any calls to that number

would have gotten through, much less reached” Lang

in prison. Id. ¶ 11. This argument, which sounds

in “manifest injustice,” fails to persuade. Far from

“fundamentally unfair,” the Court’s ruling is a direct

result of Lang’s failure to comply with the Local

Civil Rules and this Court’s orders. To start, even

App.7a

assuming the Court waives the telephone-number

requirement, Lang’s provided “address” is a postoffice box, not his place of imprisonment. See Second

Am. Compl. at 44, Dkt. 5. The plaintiffs assert that

“a mailing address will be sufficient to allow a party

to receive notice,” Mot. to Reinstate Compl. ¶ 12,

but a “Post Office Box address does not constitute a

full and correct residence address for purposes of

the Local Rules,” Betz v. First Credit Servs., Inc.,

139 F. Supp. 3d 451, 454 (D.D.C. 2015). The plaintiffs

provide no reason why the residence-address requirement should be set aside, and the Court would be

remiss not to mention that pro se prisoners routinely

comply with it. See, e.g., Groenendal v. EOUSA, No.

20-cv-1030, 2024 WL 1299333 (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2024).

Indeed, Lang’s failure to indicate that he initially

proceeded as a pro se prisoner had the effect of

misleading the Court about his incarcerated status—

preventing a proper application of the screening

procedures provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Moreover, Lang’s incarceration does not, standing alone, provide an equitable basis for relief from

the Local Civil Rules. See In re Akers, No. 19-cv3190, 2022 WL 17851468, at *1 (D.D.C. Mar. 9, 2022)

(“[N]either simple incarceration nor lack of legal

counsel . . . , by themselves, provide the requisite good

cause for relief from judgment.” (cleaned up)). Lang

has been detained since January 16, 2021, and he

was apparently moved to solitary confinement in

October 2023—approximately two months before this

action was filed. See Defs.’ Opp’n at 6, Dkt. 15. Despite

being in solitary confinement, he nevertheless brought

this action but failed to keep the Court apprised of his

status. Lang, who “has not presented known facts

App.8a

helpful to [his] cause when [he] had the chance,”

cannot avail himself of a motion for reconsideration

“after an adverse judgment has been handed down.”

Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris, 636 F.2d

572, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (cleaned up). Further, the

Court is deeply concerned by the unrebutted allegation

that a motion to join was filed in Norwood’s name

without his consent and with a potentially forged

signature. The plaintiffs offer no explanation as to

what occurred, see Joint Status Report at 2, Dkt. 14,

and the Court will not reinstate an action under such

dubious circumstances. The more prudent course is

for Lang and any other consenting individuals to refile

this action in compliance with the Local Rules. The

Court thus concludes that the plaintiffs have failed to

satisfy Rule 59(e)’s requirements for reinstatement of

the Complaint.

For similar reasons, the plaintiffs cannot overcome

the stricter Rule 60(b) standard. Under Rule 60(b),

“the court may relieve a party or its legal representative

from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” for any of

six enumerated reasons: (1) “mistake, inadvertence,

surprise, or excusable neglect”; (2) “newly discovered

evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not

have been discovered in time to move for a new

trial under Rule 59(b)”; (3) “fraud . . . misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party”; (4) “the

judgment is void”; (5) “the judgment has been satisfied,

released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier

judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or

applying it prospectively is no longer equitable”; or (6)

“any other reasons that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b). Although they invoke Rule 60(b)(6) for alleged

“extraordinary circumstances,” the plaintiffs’ motion

App.9a

largely gestures toward Rule 60(b)(1) for “mistake,

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b)(1). “[E]xcusable neglect is understood to

encompass situations in which the failure to comply

with a filing deadline is attributable to negligence.”

Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship,

507 U.S. 380, 394 (1993) (cleaned up). It is “not a

vehicle for raising new legal theories,” and “a party’s

disagreement with a district court’s legal reasoning or

analysis is rarely, if ever, a basis for relief.” Munoz v.

Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of D.C., 730 F. Supp. 2d 62, 66-67

(D.D.C. 2010). Neither Rule 60(b)(1) nor 60(b)(6) forms

a basis for relief.

As the Court informed the plaintiffs, see Min.

Order of Apr. 15, 2024, pro se plaintiffs are not exempt

from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the

Local Civil Rules, see Hedrick v. FBI, 216 F. Supp. 3d

84, 93 (D.D.C. 2016). The plaintiffs offer no explanation

for their failure to comply. As explained supra, Lang’s

incarceration and solitary confinement—conditions

preceding the filing of the Complaint and subsequent

filings—are not adequate bases for relief. Also, the

plaintiffs besides Lang offer zero explanation as to

why they could not have complied with the relevant

rules. See Halman v. Jones Lang Wootton USA, 355 F.

Supp. 2d 239, 244 (D.D.C. 2005) (“Parties have an obligation

to monitor the court’s docket and keep apprised of

relevant deadlines.”). Ultimately, Lang made the choice

to pursue this action during his imprisonment, and he

did so without a proper accounting of the Local Civil

Rules and the fulsome consent of his alleged co-plaintiffs. Rule 60(b)(1) and (6) cannot “rescue” him from

these choices “that later tum[ed] out to be improvident.”

Nursing Home, Inc., 636 F. 2d at 577.

App.10a

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ Motion to Reinstate

Complaint, Dkt. 11, is DENIED.

/s/ Dabney L. Friedrich

United States District Judge

June 19, 2024

App.11a

ORDER TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE,

U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

(APRIL 30, 2024)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

________________________

EDWARD JACOB LANG, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DANIEL THAU, Sergeant, Metropolitan Police

Department, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________

No. 24-cv-295 (DLF)

Before: Dabney L. FRIEDRICH,

United States District Judge.

The plaintiffs were ordered to show cause, on or

before April 29, 2024, why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with

Local Rule 5.l(c)(l). See Min. Order of April 15, 2024.

The deadline has passed, and the plaintiffs have failed

to show cause or make any other filing with this Court.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is

directed to close this case and mail a copy of this

order to the lead plaintiffs address of record. So

App.12a

Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on April 30,

2024. (lcdlt2) (Entered: 04/30/2024)

App.13a

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE,

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

(APRIL 15, 2024)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

________________________

EDWARD JACOB LANG, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DANIEL THAU, Sergeant, Metropolitan Police

Department, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________

No. 24-cv-295 (DLF)

Before: Dabney L. FRIEDRICH,

United States District Judge.

MINUTE ORDER granting the defendants’ Motion

for an Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs’

Motion for Joinder. On or before June 3, 2024, the

defendants shall file any response to the plaintiffs’

Motion to Join.

Further, the Court is concerned about the plaintiffs’ potential noncompliance with Local Civil Rule

5.1 (c)(1). This rule provides that “[t]he first filing by

or on behalf of a party shall have in the caption the

App.14a

name and full residence address of the party.” LCvR

5.l(c)(l).

“If [a] party is appearing pro se, the caption” of

the first filing “shall also include the party’s telephone

number.” Id. The “[f]ailure to provide the address

information within 30 days of filing may result in the

dismissal of the case against the defendant.” Id. Based

on the Court’s review of the plaintiffs’ Second Amended

Complaint, the only listed telephone number is for

plaintiff EDWARD JACOB LANG. But the defendants

represent that the listed telephone number is not

actually Lang's. As such, it does not appear that the

plaintiffs have complied with LCvR 5.l(c)(l) within the

allotted 30 days, preventing the parties from consulting

and from this Court contacting the plaintiffs telephonically. Although the plaintiffs are proceeding pro

se, they still must comply with the Local Rules. See

Hedrick v. FBI, 216 F. Supp. 3d 84, 93 (D.D.C. 2016).

It is hereby ORDERED that on or before April 29,

2024 the plaintiffs shall show cause why the case

should not be dismissed for failure to comply with

Local Rule 5.l(c)(l).

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of

this order to the plaintiffs’ addresses of record. So

Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on April 15,

2024. (lcdlt2) (Entered: 04/15/2024)

App.15a

DOCKET,

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

GENERAL DOCKET

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

________________________

Edward lang, et al v. Daniel Thau, et al

Assigned to: Hon. Jeffrey S. White

Court of Appeals Docket#: 24-5192

Docketed: 08/23/2024

Termed: 02/25/2025

Petitioner

Edward Jacob Lang

represented by

Edward Jacob Lang

882 Trevi Court

Lake Worth, FL 33467

917-772-5708

jjakelangj6@gmail.com

PRO SE

Respondent

District of Columbia, A Municipal Corporation, as

Employer of Metropolitan Police Department Officers

represented by

Graham E. Phillips

[COR LD NTC Gvt DC OAG]

Office of the Attorney General for the District of

Columbia

App.16a

400 6th Street NW

Suite 8100

Washington, DC 20001

Direct: 202-724-6647

Firm: 202-727-3400

Email: graham.phillips@dc.gov

Caroline S. Van Zile, Deputy Solicitor General

[LD NTC Gvt DC OAG]

Office of the Attorney General for the District of

Columbia

Office of the Solicitor General

400 6th Street NW

Suite 8100

Washington, DC 20001

Firm: 202-727-3400

Email: caroline.vanzile@dc.gov

_________________________________________

08/23/2024

US CIVIL CASE docketed. [24-5192] [Entered:

08/23/2024 12:07 PM]

08/23/2024

NOTICE OF APPEAL [2071574] seeking

review of a decision by the U.S. District Court

in 1:24-cv-00295-DLF filed by Zachary Jordan

Alam, Christopher Alberts, All Plaintiffs,

James Beeks, Gina Bisignano, Ethan Bray,

James Brett, Eric Clark, John Does 1-50,

Albert Evangelista, Gilbert Fonticoba, Gabriel

Garcia, Peter Harding, Donald Hazard,

Edward Jacob Lang, Rachel Meyers, Robert

Minuta, Henry Muntzer, Rachel Powell, Ryan

Samsel, Ronald Sandlin, Barton Shively, Peter

Stager, Isaac Steve Sturgeon, Isaac Thomas

App.17a

and Cindy Lou Young. Appeal assigned USCA

Case Number: 24-5192. [24-5192] [Entered:

08/23/2024 12:28 PM]

08/23/2024

LETTER [2071576] sent regarding attorney

membership to Stefanie Lambert for All

Plaintiffs, Eric Clark, Edward Jacob Lang,

Ryan Samsel, Christopher Alberts, Isaac Steve

Sturgeon, Gilbert Fonticoba, Isaac Thomas,

Rachel Meyers, Zachary Jordan Alam, Rachel

Powell, Ethan Bray, Albert Evangelista,

Cindy Lou Young, Donald Hazard, Barton

Shively, James Brett, Ronald Sandlin, Gabriel

Garcia, Gina Bisignano, Peter Stager, James

Beeks, Peter Harding, Robert Minuta and

Henry Muntzer. Application for Admission due

09/23/2024. [24-5192] [Entered: 08/23/2024

12:29 PM]

08/23/2024

CLERK’S ORDER [2071579] filed directing

party to file initial submissions: APPELLANT

docketing statement due 09/23/2024. APPELLANT certificate as to parties due 09/23/2024.

APPELLANT statement of issues due 09/

23/2024. APPELLANT underlying decision

due 09/23/2024. APPELLANT deferred appendix statement due 09/23/2024. APPELLANT

entry of appearance due 09/23/2024.

APPELLANT transcript status report due

09/23/2024. APPELLANT procedural motions

due 09/23/2024. APPELLANT dispositive

motions due 10/07/2024; directing party to

file initial submissions: APPELLEE certificate

App.18a

as to parties due 09/23/2024. APPELLEE entry

of appearance due 09/23/2024. APPELLEE

procedural motions due 09/23/2024. APPELLEE dispositive motions due 10/07/2024 [245192] [Entered: 08/23/2024 12:36 PM]

09/23/2024

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE [2076150] filed by

Joseph F. Carilli, Jr. and co-counsel Jane

Lyons on behalf of Appellees Thomas A.

Dibiase, Michael Leroy Byrd, James W.

Joyce, United States Capitol Police, J. Thomas

Manger, Eric Waldo, Thomas Loyd and

Bryant Williams. [24-5192] (Carilli, Joseph)

[Entered: 09/23/2024 07:42 AM]

09/23/2024

CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS

AND RELATED CASES [2076152] filed by

Michael Leroy Byrd, Thomas A. Dibiase,

James W. Joyce, Thomas Loyd, J. Thomas

Manger, United States Capitol Police, Eric

Waldo and Bryant Williams [Service Date:

09/23/2024] [24-5192] (Carilli, Joseph)

[Entered: 09/23/2024 07:44AM]

09/23/2024

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE [2076269] filed by

Graham Phillips and co-counsel Ashwin

Phatak on behalf of Appellee DC. [24-5192]

(Phillips, Graham) [Entered: 09/23/2024 02:34

PM]

09/23/2024

App.19a

CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS

AND RELATED CASES [2076270] filed by DC

[Service Date: 09/23/2024] [24-5192] (Phillips,

Graham) [Entered: 09/23/2024 02:35 PM]

09/23/2024

NOTICE [2076271] filed advising that a brief

will not be filed filed by DC [Service Date:

09/23/2024] [24-5192] (Phillips, Graham)

[Entered: 09/23/2024 02:40 PM]

10/07/2024

MOTION [2078683] for summary affirmance

filed by Michael Leroy Byrd, Thomas A.

Dibiase, James W. Joyce, Thomas Loyd,

United States Capitol Police, Eric Waldo,

Bryant Williams and J. Thomas Manger

(Service Date: 10/07/2024 by Email, CM/ECF

NOA) Length Certification: 3470 words. [245192] (Carilli, Joseph) [Entered: 10/07/2024

03:48 PM]

10/09/2024

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE [2079320] combined with MOTION to permit pro se electronic filing status filed by Edward Jacob

Lang (Service Date: 10/10/2024 by CM/ECF

NOA) Length Certification: 18 pages. [245192] [Entered: 10/10/2024 01:01 PM]

11/07/2024

MOTION [2084643] to extend time to file

response filed by Edward Jacob Lang (Service

Date: 11/13/2024 by CM/ECF NOA) Length

App.20a

Certification: 2 pages. [24-5192] [Entered:

11/13/2024 10:23 AM]

11/18/2024

CLERK’S ORDER [2085331] filed considering

motion to extend time 0846; considering

motion to permit pro se electronic filing

07932; response to motion for summary

affirmance 0786 now due on 12/18/2024;

counsel for appellant is directed to submit an

Application for Admission to Practice in this

court, and to enter an appearance in this case

by 12/18/2024 [24-5192] [Entered: 11/18/2024

01:02 PM]

12/23/2024

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION [2091371] to

motion for summary affirmance 0786 filed by

Edward Jacob Lang [Service Date: 12/26/2024

by US Mail, Clerk] Length Certification: 6

Pages. [24-5192] [Entered: 12/26/2024 08:49

AM]

01/02/2025

REPLY [2092153] filed by Michael Leroy Byrd,

Thomas A. Dibiase, Thomas Loyd, James W.

Joyce, J. Thomas Manger, United States

Capitol Police, Eric Waldo and Bryant

Williams to response 091371 [Service Date:

01/02/2025 by US Mail, Email, CM/ECF

NOA] Length Certification: 1091 Words. [245192] (Carilli, Joseph) [Entered: 01/02/2025

10:06 AM]

App.21a

02/25/2025

PER CURIAM ORDER [2102536] filed

ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that

this appeal be dismissed for lack of prosecution

as to the appellants other than Lang. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for

summary affirmance 0786 be granted. Withholding issuance of the mandate. Before

Judges: Childs, Pan and Garcia. [24-5192]

[Entered: 02/25/2025 10:38 AM]

04/22/2025

MANDATE ISSUED to Clerk, U.S. District

Court. [24-5192] [Entered: 04/22/2025 02:42

PM]

App.22a

DOCKET,

U.S. DISTRICT COURT,

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

U.S. District Court

District of Columbia (Washington, DC)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE#: 1:24-cv-00295-DLF

________________________

LANG et al v. THAU et al

Assigned to: Judge Dabney L. Friedrich

Date Filed: 01/05/2024

Date Terminated: 04/30/2024

Plaintiff

EDWARD JACOB LANG

represented by

EDWARD JACOB LANG

P.O. BOX485

Narrowsburg, NY 12764

PRO SE

_________________________________________

01/05/2024

1)

COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing

fee$ 405, receipt number 206553) with Jury

Demand filed by EDWARD JACOB LANG.

(Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(mg)

(Entered: 02/02/2024)

01/05/2024

SUMMONS Not Issued as to All Defendants

(mg) (Entered: 02/02/2024)

App.23a

01/09/2024

2)

AMENDED COMPLAINT against All

Defendants with Jury Demand filed by

EDWARD JACOB LANG.(mg) (Entered:

02/02/2024)

02/02/2024

3)

STANDARD ORDER for Civil Cases. See text

for details. Signed by Judge Dabney L.

Friedrich on February 2, 2024. (lcdlf2)

(Entered: 02/02/2024)

02/05/2024

4)

MOTION for Leave to File, MOTION to Join

by ALL MOVANTS. “The Court construes

the movants’ filing as a Motion for Leave to

File and a Motion for Joinder. The Motion for

Leave to file is GRANTED. The movants are

directed to serve the Motion to Join on the

defendants, and the defendants shall file any

opposition within 14 days of service of this

filing.” Signed by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich

on February 5, 2024. (mg). (Entered:

02/06/2024)

02/06/2024

5)

Second AMENDED COMPLAINT against All

Defendants with Jury Demand filed by ALL

PLAINTIFFS. “The Plaintiffs’ Motion for leave

to file an Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

“Signed by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on

February 6, 2024.(mg) (Entered: 02/07/2024)

App.24a

04/02/2024

6)

REQUEST FOR SUMMONS TO ISSUE filed

by EDWARD JACOB LANG.(mg) (Entered:

04/02/2024)

04/02/2024

Summons (20) Issued as to JASON BAGSHAW, MICHAEL LEROY BYRD, ROBERT

J. CONTEE, III, JIMMY CRISMAN,

THOMAS A. DIBIASE, FRANK EDWARDS,

ROBERT GLOVER, JAMES W. JOYCE,

THOMAS LOYD, J. THOMAS MANGER,

LILA MORRIS, WILLIAM ROBERT NORWOOD, YOGANANDA PITTMAN, PAUL

RILEY, PAMELAA. SMITH, DANIEL

THAU, TARA TINDALL, UNITED STATES

CAPITOL POLICE, ERIC WALDO, BRYANT

WILLIAMS. (mg) (Entered: 04/02/2024)

04/03/2024

7)

REQUEST FOR SUMMONS TO ISSUE filed

by EDWARD JACOB LANG.(mg) (Entered:

04/03/2024)

04/03/2024

Summons (1) Issued as to DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA. (mg) (Entered: 04/03/2024)

04/07/2024

MINUTE ORDER. The plaintiffs filed the

Second Amended Complaint in this action on

February 6, 2024, against numerous defendants. As of the date of this order, the public

docket reflects that the plaintiffs have yet to

file proof of service of any defendant. The

App.25a

Court directs the plaintiffs’ attention to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which

provides in pertinent part that if a defendant

is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court, on motion or on its

own after notice to the plaintiff, must

dismiss the action without prejudice against

that defendant or order that service be made

within a specified time. But if the plaintiffs

show good cause for the failure, the court

must extend the time for service for an

appropriate period. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Unless

service is waived, proof of service must be

made to the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(1)(1). To

avoid the finality of a mandatory dismissal

of this action against the defendants, it is

ORDERED that the plaintiffs must, on or

before May 6, 2024, either cause process to

be served upon the defendants and proof of

service to be filed with the Court or establish

good cause for the failure to do so. The failure

to make such filings will result in dismissal

of this case. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L.

Friedrich on April 7, 2024. (lcdlf2) (Entered:

04/07/2024)

04/15/2024

8)

NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph F. Carilli,

Jr on behalf of UNITED STATES CAPITOL

POLICE (Carilli, Joseph) (Entered: 04/15/

2024)

04/15/2024

9)

MOTION for Extension of Time to File

Response/Reply as to 1 MOTION for Leave

App.26a

to File MOTION to Join by UNITED STATES

CAPITOL POLICE. (Carilli, Joseph) (Entered:

04/15/2024)

04/15/2024

MINUTE ORDER granting the defendants’

2 Motion for an Extension of Time to

Respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Joinder. On

or before June 3, 2024, the defendants shall

file any response to the plaintiffs’ 1 Motion

to Join.

Further, the Court is concerned about the

plaintiffs’ potential noncompliance with Local

Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1). This rule provides that

“[t]he first filing by or on behalf of a party

shall have in the caption the name and full

residence address of the party.” LCvR 5.1(c)(1).

“If [a] party is appearing prose, the caption”

of the first filing “shall also include the

party’s telephone number.” Id. The “[f]ailure

to provide the address information within

30 days of filing may result in the dismissal

of the case against the defendant.” Id.

Based on the Court’s review of the plaintiffs’

5. Second Amended Complaint, the only

listed telephone number is for plaintiff

EDWARD JACOB LANG. But the defendants represent that the listed telephone

number is not actually Lang’s. As such, it

does not appear that the plaintiffs have

complied with LCvR 5.1(c)(1) within the

allotted 30 days, preventing the parties from

consulting and from this Court contacting

the plaintiffs telephonically. Although the

plaintiffs are proceeding prose, they still

App.27a

must comply with the Local Rules. See

Hedrick v. FBI, 216 F. Supp. 3d 84, 93

(D.D.C. 2016). It is hereby ORDERED that

on or before April 29, 2024 the plaintiffs

shall show cause why the case should not

be dismissed for failure to comply with

Local Rule 5.1(c)(1).

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a

copy of this order to the plaintiffs’ addresses

of record. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L.

Friedrich on April 15, 2024. (lcdlf2)

(Entered: 04/15/2024)

04/15/2024

Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Show

Cause due by 4/29/2024. (zjch,) (Entered:

04/16/2024)

04/30/2024

MINUTE ORDER. The plaintiffs were

ordered to show cause, on or before April

29, 2024, why this case should not be

dismissed without prejudice for failure to

comply with Local Rule 5.1(c)(1). See Min.

Order of April 15, 2024. The deadline has

passed, and the plaintiffs have failed to

show cause or make any other filing with

this Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED

that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is directed

to close this case and mail a copy of this

order to the lead plaintiffs address of

record. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L.

Friedrich on April 30, 2024. (lcdlf2)

(Entered: 04/30/2024)

App.28a

05/06/2024

10) NOTICE of Appearance by Stefanie Lynn

Junttila on behalf of ALL PLAINTIFFS.

(Junttila, Stefanie) (Main Document 10

replaced on 5/7/2024) (mg). Modified event

on 5/7/2024 (mg). (Entered: 05/06/2024)

05/06/2024

11) MOTION for Relief from Judgment by ALL

PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit,

# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Junttila, Stefanie)

(Entered: 05/06/2024)

05/08/2024

MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt

of Stefanie Lambert’s 10 Notice of Appearance. Her filing does not include a D.C. Bar

number, and she has not moved to appear

pro hac vice per LCvR 83.2(c). Ms. Lambert

is directed to file on or before May 15, 2024

proof that she is a member of the bar of

this Court or seek to appear pro hac vice.

So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich

on May 8, 2024. (lcdlf2) (Entered: 05/08

/2024)

05/13/2024

MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt

of an email from Ms. Marina Medvin,

counsel for movant WILLIAM ROBERT

NORWOOD in a pending January 6 criminal case. Ms. Medvin represents that Mr.

Norwood’s “name and alleged signature is

being used” in this case “fraudulently, and

without his consent, knowledge, or author-

App.29a

ization.” The Court takes these representations seriously. As such, on or before May

20, 2024, counsel for the plaintiffs shall file

a status report informing the Court how

Mr. Norwood’s name and signature came to

appear on an affidavit and whether this

problem also affects other plaintiffs in this

case. Further, counsel for the plaintiff is

reminded of the Court’s May 8, 2024 minute

order directing her to file proof of her

membership of the bar of this Court or to

move for an appearance pro hac vice. So

Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on

May 13, 2024. (lcdlf2) (Entered: 05/13/2024)

05/15/2024

12) ENTERED IN ERROR NOTICE of Appearance by Stefanie Lynn Junttila on behalf of

ALL PLAINTIFFS (Junttila, Stefanie)

Modified on 5/16/2024, refiled at docket entry

13.(mg). (Entered: 05/15/2024)

05/15/2024

13) NOTICE of Appearance by Stefanie Lynn

Junttila on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Junttila,

Stefanie) (Main Document 13 replaced on

5/16/2024) (mg). (Entered: 05/15/2024)

05/20/2024

14) STATUS REPORT by ALL PLAINTIFFS.

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Draft Letter and

Verification Form for Plaintiffs)(Junttila,

Stefanie) (Entered: 05/20/2024)

App.30a

05/20/2024

15) Memorandum in opposition to re 11 Motion

for Relief from Judgment filed by UNITED

STATES CAPITOL POLICE. (Attachments:

# 1 Exhibit A)(Carilli, Joseph) (Entered: 05/20

/2024)

06/19/2024

16) ORDER denying the plaintiffs’ 11 Motion

to Reinstate Complaint. See text for details.

Signed by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on

June 19, 2024. (lcdlf2) (Entered: 06/19/2024)

08/19/2024

17) NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT

COURT as to 16 Order on Motion for Relief

from Judgment by ALL PLAINTIFFS. Filing

fee $ 605, receipt number ADCDC- 11101609. Fee Status: Fee Paid. Parties have been

notified. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Order)(Junttila,

Stefanie) (Entered: 08/19/2024)

08/20/2024

18) Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order

Appealed (Memorandum Opinion), and

Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The

Court of Appeals fee was paid re 17 Notice

of Appeal to DC Circuit Court,. (mg)

(Entered: 08/20/2024)

08/23/2024

USCA Case Number 24-5192 for 17 Notice

of Appeal to DC Circuit Court, filed by ALL

PLAINTIFFS. (mg) (Entered: 08/23/2024)

App.31a

04/22/2025

19) MANDATE of USCA as to 17 Notice of

Appeal to DC Circuit Court, filed by ALL

PLAINTIFFS; USCA Case Number 24-5192.

(Attachments: # 1 USCA Order 2/25/2025)

(znmw) (Entered: 04/22/2025)

App.32a

GOVERNMENT MOTION

FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE FILED IN THE

D.C. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

(OCTOBER 7, 2024)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

________________________

EDWARD LANG, ET AL.,

Appellant,

v.

DANIEL THAU,

D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE, ET AL.,

Appellees.

________________________

No. 24-5192

(Civ. A. No. 24-0295)

MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE

Appellees U.S. Capitol Police; J. Thomas Manger,

Chief, U.S. Capitol Police; Eric Waldo, Deputy Chief,

U.S. Capitol Police; Thomas Loyd, Captain, U.S.

Capitol Police; Bryant Williams, Officer, U.S. Capitol

Police; Michael Leroy Byrd, Captain, U.S. Capitol

Police; Thomas A. Dibiase, General Counsel, U.S.

Capitol Police; and James W. Joyce, Senior Counsel,

U.S. Capitol Police (“Federal Appellees”), by and

through undersigned counsel, respectfully move for

App.33a

summary affirmance of the Honorable Dabney L.

Friedrich’s April 30, 2024 Minute Order, dismissing

the case without prejudice, and the June 19, 2024

Order (R.16), denying the plaintiffs’ motion for

reinstatement of the case.1 The District Court’s dismissal

for failure to identify all the plaintiffs as required by

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 10 and Local

Civil Rule (“Local Rule”) 5.1(c)(1) was plainly correct,

and the District Court’s was well within its discretion

to decline to reinstate the case on a record still lacking

compliance with the procedural rules or an explanation

for their violation once the plaintiffs were represented

by counsel. For these reasons, the merits of the appeal

are “so clear as to make summary affirmance proper,”

Walker v. Washington, 627 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C. Cir.

1980), and “no benefit will be gained from further

briefing and argument of the issues presented,”

Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294,

297-98 (D.C. Cir. 1987). Therefore, the District Court’s

judgment should be summarily affirmed.

BACKGROUND

On January 5, 2024, Edward (“Jake”) Lang, proceeding prose, filed a complaint on behalf of himself

and, purportedly, twenty-six other plaintiffs listed by

name only in the caption of the complaint and “All c/o

Jake Lang.” Compl. (R.1) Page 10. Lang identified a

Post Office box in the state of New York as his address.

Id. The complaint was not signed by hand by any

named plaintiff, except for certain documents entitled

“Additional Plaintiff Joining in the Complaint” that

1 A copy of the Order entered on June 19, 2024, is attached. This

Order recounts the procedural history, including the April 30,

2024, Minute Order.

App.34a

were appended to the complaint and in some instances

also included address but not phone numbers for

individual plaintiffs. The complaint presented, among

others, Bivens, tort, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for

more than $5 million in damages against the District

of Columbia, officials and officers of the District of

Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, and officials

and officers of the U.S. Capitol Police. Compl. (R.1)

¶¶ 37–41, 98-143, Prayer for Relief. The complaint

stated it was filed on behalf of the named plaintiffs

and a class of similar individuals allegedly injured by

law enforcement during the events at the Capitol on

the afternoon of January 6, 2021. Id. ¶¶ 32-34.

On January 9, 2024, Lang filed an amended complaint adding eighteen plaintiffs, several factual allegations, and one cause of action (negligence per se).

Am. Compl. (R.2). On February 2, 2024, the District

Court filed a standard procedural order informing

plaintiffs of the need to follow the Rules and Local

Rules. Standing Order (R.3).

On February 5, 2024, twenty-six individuals filed

a motion for joinder (Mot. Join. (R.4)) and Lang filed

a second amended complaint, adding forty-five new

plaintiffs and removing thirteen prior plaintiffs still

without providing address or telephone contact information for most. 2d Am. Compl. (R.5). The District Court

granted the motion for joinder and leave for filing the

second amended complaint. On April 2 and 3, 2024,

nearly ninety days after the lawsuit was initiated,

Lang, or someone acting on his behalf, first requested

the issuance of summonses. Reqs. for Summons (R.6,

R.7).

On April 7, 2024, the District Court ordered Plaintiffs to demonstrate proof of service or good cause for

App.35a

their failure to serve in accordance with applicable

rules by May 6, 2024. See Min. Order of Apr. 7, 2024. On

April 15, 2024, after an Assistant United States

Attorney entered an appearance on behalf of the U.S.

Capitol Police for the limited purpose of requesting to

extend the time to oppose the motion for joinder. Not

Appear (R.8); Mot. to Extend (R.9). The District Court

granted the requested extension and ordered Plaintiffs

to “show cause why the case should not be dismissed

for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.1(c)(1)” on or

before April 29, 2024. Min. Order of Apr. 15, 2024. The

District Court’s Local Rule 5.1(c)(1) provides, in

pertinent part:

The first filing by or on behalf of a party shall

have in the caption the name and full

residence address of the party. If the party

does not wish its full residence address to

appear on the public docket, it shall omit the

address and simultaneously file under seal a

notice containing its full address, which

notice shall be available only to the Court and

the opposing party. If the party is appearing

pro se, the caption shall also include the party’s

telephone number, unless the pro se party

wishes to include that in its sealed filing.

Those filing pro se in forma pauperis must

provide in the caption the name and full

residence address or official address of each

defendant. Failure to provide the address

information within 30 days of filing may

result in the dismissal of the case against the

defendant.

Dist. Ct. LCvR 5.1(c)(1).

App.36a

Neither Lang nor any other purported plaintiff

responded to the Court’s orders to show cause regarding

service or party identification by their respective

deadlines. On April 30, 2024, the District Court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to comply

with the procedural rules requiring identification of

parties. Min. Order of Apr. 30, 2024.

On May 6, 2024, an attorney entered an appearance

on behalf of all plaintiffs (Not. Appear (R.10)) and

moved to reinstate the case. Mot. Relief J. (R.11). The

motion, seeking relief under Rule 60(b), was mistakenly

predicated on setting aside a dismissal with prejudice

(id. ¶ 4), but the District Court had dismissed without

prejudice and there was no argument that the effect

of the dismissal prevented counsel from refiling on

behalf of properly identified plaintiffs.

As grounds for reinstatement, the motion contended

that the lead plaintiff, Lang, was imprisoned and

allegedly placed in solitary confinement after filing

the second amended complaint. Lang’s unavailability

prevented his timely response to the District Court’s

orders and procedural compliance. The reinstatement

motion further represented that “most” of the named

plaintiffs besides Lang were also imprisoned. See id.

¶ 15. The motion argued that violating the requirements

for party contact and identification information was

an insufficient basis on which to dismiss the claims

and that service of process had been accomplished by

May 6, 2024. Id. ¶¶ 12, 14, 15, 18. The motion also

contended that “unexpected and extreme hardship”

would befall plaintiffs were their claims not adjudicated.

Id. ¶ 15.

On May 13, 2024, the District Court entered a

Minute Order, noting receipt of an electronic mail

App.37a

message from counsel for William Robert Norwood,

which stated Norwood’s “name and alleged signature

is being used” in this case “fraudulently, and without

his consent, knowledge, or authorization.” Min. Order

of May 13, 2024. The District Court ordered “counsel

for the plaintiffs shall file a status report informing

the Court how Mr. Norwood’s name and signature came

to appear on an affidavit and whether this problem

also affects other plaintiffs in this case.” Id. Counsel

for Plaintiffs subsequently filed a status report (Status

Rep. (R.14)) and stated, “counsel was unaware of any

problems surrounding Mr. Norwood’s affidavit upon

taking the case, nor does counsel know how Mr.

Norwood’s name and signature came to appear on an

affidavit.” Id. ¶ 10

The Capitol Police opposed reinstatement (Opp’n

(R.15)), arguing Plaintiffs made no attempt to comply

with or to seek relief from Local Rule 5.1(c)(1) and

offered no excusable explanation for their lack of

response to the District Court’s order to show cause.

Id. at 4, 5.

On June 19, 2024, the District Court denied the

motion to reinstate. Order (R.16). The District Court

considered the motion under both Rules 59(e) and

60(b). Id. at 2. First, the District Court found that

Plaintiffs forfeited any “clear error” argument because

they did not raise an argument that the District Court

improperly applied Local Rule 5. 1(c)(1). Id. at 2.

Second, the District Court found that the motion failed

to demonstrate “manifest injustice” because the dismissal without prejudice resulted directly from Lang’s

failure to comply with Local Rule 5. 1(c)(1) and the

District Court order. Id. at 3. Third, the District Court

App.38a

found the motion failed to demonstrate excusable

neglect. Id. at 4–5.

This appeal followed.

ARGUMENT

I.

The District Court’s Dismissal of the Case for

Failure to Comply With Its Orders and

Applicable Procedural Rules is Well Within Its

Discretion

The Court should affirm the dismissal of this

case. See Gardner v. United States, 211 F.3d 1305,

1308 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (review of dismissal for noncompliance with district court’s order is for abuse of

discretion). In the interest of judicial transparency,

the Rules require litigating parties to be identified on

the public record, and courts make few exceptions.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a), 17(a); In re Sealed Case,

931 F.3d 92, 96-97 (D.C. Cir. 2019); United States v.

Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1463 (D.C. Cir. 1995).

Rule 10 has been amended only once since its adoption

in 1937, and the 2007 amendments were merely stylistic.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10, Advisory Comm. Notes. One of

the ways that parties are identified is connecting their

names to their residential addresses, unless for safety

or other reasons presented to the court, plaintiff

demonstrates that an extraordinary exception is necessary. Without appropriate identifying information, a

party is essentially allowed to proceed under a pseudonym, and that is strongly disfavored. In re Sealed

Case, 971 F.3d 324, 326 (D.C. Cir. 2020).

In service of Rule 10, Local Rule 5.1(c)(1) requires,

“[t]he first filing by or on behalf of a party” to include

“in the caption the name and full residence address of

App.39a

the party,” and, if the parties are prose, “the party’s

telephone number.” LCvR 5.1.(c)(1). The Rule warns that

“[f]ailure to provide the address information within 30

days of filing may result in the dismissal of the case

against the defendant.” Id.

The record is replete with insufficient identifying

information for dozens of plaintiffs spanning three

different pleadings, which creates chaos and risks

harmful and prejudicial errors. The complaint itself

only included an address for Lang, listing a post office

box and not a residential address, and no telephone

number. Compl. (R.1) at 1.2 Also, the motion for joinder

included the same address for Lang, and no telephone

number, and did not list any information for the

additional individuals who sought to join. Mot. Join.

(R.4). As a non-attorney, Lang, the first-named plaintiff

on each of the pleadings, may not bring any grievance

into court other than his own because otherwise he

would be engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.

See Deppenbrook v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp.,

778 F.3d 166, 168 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“Deppenbrook, as

a pro se party, may represent himself only.” (citing

Georgiades v. Martin-Trigona, 729 F.2d 831, 834

(D.C. Cir. 1984) (appellee’s son, “not a member of the

bar of any court,” could appear pro se but was “not

2 A telephone number purportedly for Lang appears on the Civil

Cover Sheet. Civ. Cover Sheet (R.1-1). As the District Court,

however, observed the telephone number was apparently not

Lang’s. Min. Order of Apr. 15, 2024. The reinstatement motion

confirmed that the number listed was unlikely to reach Lang

because he was in prison without regular access to a telephone

throughout the lifespan of the lawsuit. Mot. Relief from J. (R.11)

¶¶ 11, 13.

App.40a

qualified to appear in the District Court or in this

court as counsel for others”))).

In any case, no pro se litigant has a “license” to

“ignore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” and the

local rules. Moore v. Agency for Int’l Dev., 994 F.2d

874, 876 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted); see Oviedo v. Wash. Metro. Area

Transit Auth., 948 F.3d 386, 397 (D.C. Cir. 2020);

Mischler v. Pence, Civ. A. No. 20-1863 (TSC), 2022 WL

123891, at *3 (D.D.C. Jan. 13, 2022), aff’d No. 22-5042,

2023 WL 5212592 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 3, 2023) (“[S]tatus

as a pro se litigant does not constitute a license . . . to

ignore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court’s

local rules, and orders.” (internal quotations omitted)).

To prompt compliance with Rule 10 and Local Rule

5.1, the District Court pointed out to Plaintiffs the

requirements of Local Rule 5.1(c)(1) and provided

Lang and the other Plaintiffs an opportunity to cure

their deficiency, ordering them to “show cause why

the case should not be dismissed for failure to comply

with Local Rule 5.1(c)(1).” Min. Order of Apr. 15, 2024.

“The assistance provided by the district courts, however,

does not constitute a license for a plaintiff filing pro se

to ignore the [local rules].” Moore, 994 F.2d at 876.

And, despite the warning in Local Rule 5.1(c)(1) and

the District Court’s express warning on its order to

show cause (Min. Order of Apr. 15, 2024), the deficiency

was not cured by the deadline set, which was several

months after the lawsuit had been initiated and a

general order (Standing Order (R.3)) had directed

Lang and all Plaintiffs to information about the

federal and local procedural rules and need to comply

with them and the District Court’s orders. As a result,

Plaintiffs were on clear notice more than once prior to

App.41a

dismissal on April 30, 2024, that the case could be

dismissed for failure to identify residential information

for each plaintiff. Min. Order of Apr. 30, 2024.

This case exemplifies the importance of party

identification to the District Court’s ability to administer

the case with certainty about whose rights are at

stake and that all parties have adequate notice of the

proceedings. The difficulty of prosecuting a civil case

while imprisoned is not a recognized exception to the

Rules, and in this case Lang’s omission of his residence

address failed to alert the District Court at the outset

of the case to his incarceration, which the District

Court reasonably found “had the effect of misleading

the Court about [Lang’s] incarcerated status—preventing a proper application of the screening procedures

provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1915[,]” the Prisoner Litigation

Reform Act. Order (R.16) at 3.

Second, it appears from the record that the motion

to join “was filed 1n [an individual]’s name without his

consent and with a potentially forged signature” id,

and thus, frustrated the District Court’s ability to

identify the parties to the litigation. The identification

of the plaintiffs is fundamental and basic to the administration of a case. After several months during which

the District Court had granted leave for a second

amended complaint to afford extra time for compliance

with the rule requiring all plaintiffs to be properly

identified and to sign the complaint themselves or

through counsel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Because nothing

in the record indicated that even one plaintiff had

complied with Rule 10 and Local Rule 5.1 or given any

reason why an exception should be made when the

district court dismissed the case, the dismissal was

well within the District Court’s discretion. See Harley

App.42a

v. City of Philadelphia, 748 F. App’x 344, 344 (D.C.

Cir. 2018) (“Appellant has identified no error in the

district court’s dismissal without prejudice of her case

for failure to file an amended complaint identifying

the full names and addresses of the parties being

sued.” (citing LCvR 5.1(c)(1)); Matthews v. Astrue,

424 F. App’x 1, 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (“Appellant has not

shown that the district court erred in dismissing his

case for failure to prosecute when he did not maintain

a current address of record with the court.” (citing

LCvR 5.1(e)).

II. The District Court

Appropriately

Denied the Motion to Reinstate

The District Court also acted well within its

discretion when it denied the motion to reinstate the

case filed by counsel. See Messina v. Krakower, 439

F.3d 755, 759 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (holding denial of Rule

59(e) motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion); Twelve

John Does v. District of Columbia, 841 F.2d 1133,

1138 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (holding denials of Rule 60(b)

motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Significantly,

counsel is not entitled to the latitude afforded to prose

parties, see Spence v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 109

F.4th 531, 538 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (“[W]e have recognized

in similar circumstances that the typical leniency

afforded pro se litigants does not necessarily follow for

pro se lawyers.”), and the motion to reinstate failed to

chart a compliant path forward.

First, nothing in the reinstatement motion identified any “intervening change of controlling law, the

availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a

clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Firestone

v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (inter-

App.43a

nal quotation marks omitted); accord Ciralsky v.

CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668, 671 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Even the

loss of meritorious claims not diligently prosecuted in

compliance with procedural rules does not amount to

“manifest injustice.” Fox v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 389

F.3d 1291, 1296, (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“We can hardly say

that the district court abused its discretion in declining

to vacate its judgment of dismissal to prevent ‘manifest

injustice”‘ when “the dismissal of the[]suit might have

been avoided through the exercise of due diligence.”);

Ciralsky, 355 F.3d at 673 (“We also cannot find that

the district court abused its discretion in concluding

that manifest injustice does not exist where, as here,

a party could have easily avoided the outcome[.]”

(cleaned up)).

Second, the District Court’s decision was also

correct under Rule 60(b), which generally applies when

the motion is filed outside the time allowed for Rule

59(e) motions. Rule 60(b) affords district courts discretion to correct final judgment, among other reasons,

in cases of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable

neglect,” or for “any other reason that justifies relief.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(l), (6). But “relief for excusable

neglect is rare . . . and relief for ‘any other reason’ under

Rule 60(b)(6) is even more rare, being available only

in extraordinary circumstances.” Owens v. Republic

of Sudan, 864 F.3d 751, 818—19 (D.C. Cir. 2017)

(cleaned up).

Here, the reinstatement motion filed by counsel

failed to satisfy the high standard for reopening under

Rule 60(b) because it failed to articulate any excusable

neglect for omitting the addresses for plaintiffs or any

other plausible ground for relief from the District

Court’s order. At a bare minimum, excusable neglect

App.44a

requires a showing of at least “‘some reasonable basis’

for not meeting a filing deadline.” Cohen v. Bd. of

Trs. of the Univ. of the D.C., 819 F.3d 476, 479 (D.C.

Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). The motion relied exclusively on Lang’s being imprisoned and (based on a

representation by counsel) his being allegedly placed

in solitary confinement for an unspecified period. But

nothing in the motion explained Lang’s failure to

comply with Local Rule 5.1(c)(1) in the first place or

after he had been placed on notice of the requirements

by the Court’s February 2, 2024, Order and before

being placed in solitary confinement. And without any

dates of Lang’s solitary confinement or any articulation

of how newly appearing counsel planned to move the

action into compliance with the procedural rules were

the case reinstated, the motion did not carry the

burden to show extraordinary relief was warranted

under Rule 60(b). See also Liljeberg v. Health Servs.

Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 (1988) (Rule

60(b)(6) is only available when “the motion . . . is not

premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated

in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).”); Kramer v. Gates,

481 F.3d 788, 792 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Rule 60(b)(6) is

mutually exclusive with other grounds for relief under

Rule 60(b)). That claims are lost due to procedural

fouls or missed deadlines is not a basis requiring relief

from a judgment, and Plaintiffs were all represented

by an attorney at the reconsideration stage, and thus

not entitled to any latitude for persistent and

unaddressed noncompliance with Local Rule 5.1. See

also Morrissey v. Mayorkas, 17 F.4th 1150, 1162–

63 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (attorney error for failing to comply

with a rule of procedure is generally insufficient to

warrant altering or amending a final judgment).

App.45a

For these reasons, there is no basis to conclude

that the District Court abused its discretion when it

denied the motion to reinstate.

***

CONCLUSION

Because the issues are straightforward and

controlled by clear precedent, further briefs will not be

helpful to the Court. Accordingly, this Court should

summarily affirm the District Court’s dismissal of this

case and refusal to reinstate it.

Matthew M. Graves

United States Attorney

Brian P. Hudak

Jane M. Lyons

Assistant United States Attorneys

/s/ Joseph F. Carilli, Jr.

Assistant United States Attorney

601 D Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

(202) 252-2525

joseph.carilli@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for the

United States of America