Motion for Reconsideration

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

ERIC J. BONETTI, Plaintiff,

CIVIL Case No. 1:21cv0190 (CMHJFA)

vs.

EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF VIRGINIA, ROBERT HILLER MALM, CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF MASSACHUSETTS, ST. GABRIEL’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH, Defendants

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

COMES NOW Plaintiff, Eric J. Bonetti, and files this motion for reconsideration and clarification of the Courts’ notice of dismissal in the above-captioned matter.

Per the Plaintiff’s amended complaint, he added the Commonwealth of Virginia as a defendant, reflecting the fact that the Alexandria Circuit Court is not a constituent part of the City of Alexandria.

This was done with the intent of addressing a key issue in the case, which is that the Alexandria Courts cannot, consistent with the plain language of the Virginia protective order statute, set forth at Va. Code § 19.2-152.10 et seq., issue a protective order absent a showing of an imminent and reasonable threat of bodily harm. When, as here, the court has done exactly that, despite Defendant’s Malm’s express statement in open court that he had not been threatened, and confirmed by emails later obtained in discovery, the Court’s order violates constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection of the laws. Indeed, the Alexandria courts’ decision fails to pass constitutional muster even when viewed through the lens of a rational basis analysis.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Removal

1

Moreover, subsequent to adding the Commonwealth of Virginia as a defendant, Plaintiff arranged service through a private process server on the Office of Attorney General (OAG). Due to issues with social distancing and changed procedures in that office due to the pandemic, is unclear as of this writing if that office has accepted service of process, although it has accepted service of process in subsequent filings, including Plantiff’s request for a writ of mandamus as against the Alexandria Circuit Court. Nor does it appear that OAG has entered a motion to dismiss or otherwise participated in the case.

Based on these factors, and the fact that the Court’s opinion does not appear to address his concerns about the underlying constitutional infirmities in the decision of the Alexandria courts — including the general district court’s decision to uphold the decision despite Defendant’s fabrications and other misconduct, and his express statement, in writing, that he did not actually consider himself to be threatened — Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court either to reconsider its decision so as to address these issues, or to clarify that its order to make clear that the order is a final decision of the court vis-à-vis the Commonwealth of Virginia and its courts. Alternatively, Plaintiff is willing to file pleadings that address these specific issues, either as a new action or as part of the existing litigation.

Craig D. Roswell, Esquire (VSB No.: 33901) Matthew J. Youssef, Esquire (VSB No.: 85339) NILES, BARTON & WILMER, LLP 111 S. Calvert Street, Suite 1400 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (410) 783 –6357 (410) 783 –6452 cdroswell@nilesbarton.com mjyoussef@nilesbarton.com Counsel for Defendant, Grace Episcopal Church and Episcopal Diocese of Virginia

Wayne F. Cyron, Esquire (VSB No. 12220) CYRON & MILLER LLP 100 N. Pitt St., Suite 200 Alexandria, VA 22314 703-299-0600 703-299-0603 (fax)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Removal

2

wcyron@cyronmiller.com Counsel for Defendant, Robert H. Malm

Alexandria City Attorney 301 King Street, Suite 1300 P. O. Box 178 Alexandria, Virginia 22313 George.mcandrews@alexandriava.gov

Virginia Office of Attorney General Via email

Respectfully submitted,

Eric J. Bonetti Pro se plaintiff 4129 Fountainside Lane 203 Fairfax VA 22030 703-973-4984 Eric.bonetti@protonmail.com

Under penalty of perjury, I swear and affirm the foregoing to be true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Removal

3