Edward Jacob Lang, et al. v. Daniel Thau, et al.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia—reciting its awareness that the Petitioners /Plaintiffs were incarcerated and even some in solitary confinement evidently in retaliation for the filing of this lawsuit and unable to respond—cut off the appeal below on summary affirmance. Knowing that the Plaintiffs were unable to meet deadlines dismissed the appeal before the Plaintiffs had a chance to file an Appellant brief, just as the U.S. District Court had also done in prematurely dismissing the case at the trial level. The Questions Presented are:

1. Does “good cause” as a basis for reinstatement of a lawsuit and/or extension of time under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) Rule 4(m) for failure to serve a Defendant turn on the test “through no fault of the lhtigant,” such as being incarcerated and/or in solitary confinement? Is it sufficient to show that the deviation was “through no fault of the Plaintiff’ or does “good cause” require something more (as suggested by Defendants/Respondents)?

2. Does “good cause” as a basis for reinstatement of a lawsuit or extension of time under FRCP Rule 4(m) to serve a Defendant include considering the absence of any inconvenience or prejudice to the Defendants?

3. Where all parties and the lower courts agree that the Complaint and amended complaints actually included a telephone number, could the District Court dismiss the case under Local Rule 5.1(c)(1) for failure to include a telephone number—that was in fact included —on speculation that someone might not answer the phone number—although the attorney in fact under a power of attorney did answer when the Defendants