rights under the Fourth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The present litigation addresses Plaintiffs’ right to seek enforcement on the judgment, in other words, their right to see that the Court’s orders are obeyed. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 18 (1982) (“[W]hen a plaintiff has obtained a judgment other than one for the payment of money — such as a judgment ordering the defendant to engage or refrain from engaging in certain conduct — the plaintiff may seek enforcement of the judgment ... by application for contempt or other sanctions, and with the passage of time, revivor or suit upon the judgment may become necessary to effectuate or preserve the plaintiffs rights.”); cf. Harris, 621 F.2d at 344 (<HOLDING>). Finally, no rights or interests established
holding the fourteenth amendment does not apply to the actions of the federal government holding that the fourteenth amendment does not apply to the district of columbia holding that res judicata does not apply where the prior claim was founded on the eighth amendment and the current claimwas premised on the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding the double jeopardy clause applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that the constitutional rights in a termination proceeding  are derived from the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment of the united states constitution and not the sixth amendment