High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
U.S. District Court,District of Columbia Case Number 1:08-cv-02254 JR Court of Appeals No. 09-5080Consolidating No. 09-5161
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________
O
_________________
GREGORY S. HOLLISTER
,v. _________________
O
_________________
REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT,GREGORY S. HOLLISTER
_________________
O
_________________
Lawrence J. Joyce, Esquire1517 N. Wilmot Road,Suite 215Tucson, AZ 85712D.C. Circuit Bar No. 52501September 18, 2009
Attorney for Appellant,Gregory S. Hollister
(520) 584-0236
Email: barmemberlj@earthlink.net
Defendants - Appellees.Plaintiff - Appellant,
BARRY SOETORO, et al.
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1207621 Filed: 09/22/2009 Page: 1
i
Reasons Why Oral Argument Should Be Heard
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a), counsel for Appellant, Col. Hollister respectfully requests oral argument. We believethat oral argument will assist the Court in deciding this appeal, whichinvolves a number of important legal issues. Oral Argument will enable the parties to address these issues adequately and respond to the Court’squestions and concerns.
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1207621 Filed: 09/22/2009 Page: 2
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage(s)
REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT……………………………………...iTABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………......ii, iiiTABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………..iv - viiARGUMENT………………………………………………………….…1-26I.
The Overriding Issue is the Lack of any Hearing……………...1A.
Dismissal without Holding a Hearing was a Denialof Due Process………………………………………..1, 2II.
The District Court Improperly Denied Col. Hollister’sRequest that he be Allowed to file a Second AmendedComplaint………….………………………………………..2, 3III.
The District Court Improperly Refused to Consider Col.Hollister’s First Amended Complaint………………………3, 4IV.
The District Court Decided this Case by Reference toPolitical Factors Rather than to the Law exclusively…..…..4-11V.
The Standing of Hollister Establishes that Interpleader and Bivens were Well-Pleaded, and that He Stated aClaim upon which Relief can be Granted………………...11-27A.
Hollister had Standing under Interpleader…………11-191.)
The Foundation of Standing in Interpleader was established in the Complaint and in theFirst Amended Complaint……………………..12-142)
The Facts Establish Col. Hollister’s Standingunder Interpleader………………..……………14-17
Case: 09-5080 Document: 1207621 Filed: 09/22/2009 Page: 3
Add a Comment