Skakel v. Murphy
Fourth MOTION for Extension of Time until July 30, 2008 to file cross-motions for summary judgment by Michael C. Skakel, Peter J. Murphy. (O'Hare, Michael)
Skakel v. Murphy
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
MICHAEL C. SKAKEL Petitioner, v. PETER J. MURPHY, Respondent.
: : : : :
Case No. 3:07 CV 1625 (PCD)
JUNE 23, 2008
FOURTH JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH COURT'S ORDER Pursuant to Rule 7(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the District of Connecticut, the petitioner and the respondent, by and through their respective counsel, hereby request an extension of time of thirty days, or until July 30, 2008, to file their cross motions for summary judgment in compliance with the court's order dated March 5, 2008. This is the fourth request for an extension of time by the parties with respect to the court's order to file motions for summary judgment. The grounds for this motion are as follows: 1. After trial by jury in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Fairfield, the
petitioner was convicted of murder, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a. On August 29, 2002, the trial court, Kavanewsky, J., sentenced the petitioner to imprisonment for a term of twenty years to life. The petitioner appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which affirmed his conviction on January 24, 2006. State v. Skakel, 276 Conn. 633, 888 A.2d 985 (2006). The petitioner filed a petition for certification to the United States Supreme Court which was denied on November 13, 2006. Skakel v. Connecticut, ,127 S.Ct. 578, 166 L.Ed.2d 428 (2006). U.S.
On August 25, 2005, the petitioner filed a petition for a new trial pursuant to
General Statutes § 52-270 in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Fairfield. The trial court, Karazin, J., denied the petitioner's petition for a new trial on October 25, 2007. Skakel v. State, CV05-0006524-S, Judicial District of Fairfield. 3. The petitioner filed his application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 on November 5, 2007. On November 8, 2007, this court issued an order to show cause that directed the respondent to file a response by November 30, 2007. 4. On November 29, 2007, the respondent filed a motion for extension of time
seeking permission to file his answer to the petitioner's habeas corpus petition by December 21, 2007. On November 30, 2007, this court granted the respondent's motion. On December 21, 2008, the respondent filed his answer. 5. On March 5, 2008, this court ordered the petitioner and the respondent to
file cross-motions for summary judgment by March 31, 2008. 6. On March 11, 2008, the parties filed the first joint motion for an extension of
time to file cross-motions for summary judgment by April 30, 2008, which was granted by this Court on March 12, 2008. 7. On April 15, 2008, the parties the second joint motion for an extension of time
to file cross-motions for summary judgment by May 30, 2008, which was granted by this Court on April 21, 2008. 8. On May 27, 2008, the parties filed the third joint motion for an extension of
time to file cross-motions for summary judgment by June 30, 2008, which was granted by this Court on May 29, 2008.
Counsel for the petitioner has now completed the trial in state court on the
complex litigation docket in a civil proceeding that arises from the City of Bridgeport corruption charges involving former Mayor Ganim, Bridgeport Harbour Place I, LLC v. Joseph P. Ganim, et al., Docket No. UWY-CV-04-0184523S (X06). Jury selection in that case began in February, the evidence in March and the verdict was returned in early June. Addi tion ally, counsel has been attending to other matters, including resolving several federal criminal cases before jury selection. Therefore, counsel for the petitioner require additional time in order to meet all of their obligations. 10. In addition to representing the respondent in this case, counsel for the
respondent represents the respondent-commissioner in In re Claims of Racial Disparity, Case No. CV05-4000632-S, a state habeas corpus case in which prisoners on death row in Connecticut are challenging the constitutionality of the manner in which the death penalty is imposed this state. Counsel for the respondent has been engaged in reviewing the reports of the petitioners' expert witness, conducting depositions of the petitioners' expert, consulting with the state's expert and researching issues pertaining to discovery in the case. As the supervisor of the Civil Litigation Bureau, counsel for the respondent has assisted other attorneys in the bureau to preparing briefs to the Connecticut Appellate Court in Omar Zabian v. Commissioner of Correction, A.C. 27762, and Maurice Billie v. Commissioner of Correction, A.C. 28164, and to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Jose Quintana v. John Armstrong, Case No. 04-0560-pr. 11. Counsel for the respondent, who is a member of the U.S. Army Reserve, will
be required to report his unit at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, for mandatory training from July 14, 2008 to July 18, 2008. Because of the time required to meet his other 3
responsibilities, counsel for the respondent believes that it will take him until July 30, 2008, to complete the respondent's motion for summary judgment in this case. WHEREFORE, the petitioner and the respondent jointly move this court for an extension of time of thirty days, or until July 30, 2008, to file their cross-motions for summary judgment in this case. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL C. SKAKEL PETITIONER By: W ARDEN PETER J. MURPHY RESPONDENT
/s/ Hope C. Seeley By: /s/ Michael E. O'Hare HOPE C. SEELEY MICHAEL E. O'HARE Santos & Seeley, P.C. Supervisory Assistant State's Attorney 51 Russ Street Office of the Chief State's Attorney Hartford, Connecticut 06106 300 Corporate Place Tel. No. (860) 249-6548 Rocky Hill, Connecticut 06067 Fax No. (860) 724-5533 Tel. No. (860) 258-5887 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Fax No. (860) 258-5968 Federal Bar No. ct 04863 E-mail: email@example.com Federal Bar No. ct 05318
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?