Skakel v. Murphy

Filing 24

Joint MOTION for Extension of Time until 9/22/08 to file cross motions for summary judgment by Michael C. Skakel. (Seeley, Hope)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT MICHAEL C. SKAKEL Petitioner, : : : PETER J. MURPHY, Respondent. : : SEPTEMBER 9, 2008

Case No. 3:07 CV 1625 (PCD)

SEVENTH 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 ten days, or until September 22, 2008, to file their cross motions for summary judgment in compliance with the court's order dated March 5, 2008. This is the seventh 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, 2. U.S. ,127 S.Ct. 578, 166 L.Ed.2d 428 (2006).

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. Between March 11, 2008 and the present, the parties have filed six joint

motions for an extension of time to file cross-motions for summary judgment, all of which have been granted by this Court. 7. 12, 2008. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has completed a revised draft of the legal The cross motions for summary judgment currently are due on September

argument for the motion for summary judgment in this matter, as well as having complied the lengthy appendix for filing. However, counsel is considering whether to submit all of the arguments, or whether some of the issues should be withdrawn. Moreover, counsel has a federal sentencing this week before Judge Chatigny, as well as preparing for a contested hearing in state juvenile court. Therefore, additional time is needed in this case to make the decision referenced above. 9. Counsel for the respondent has completed approximately eighty per cent

of the respondent's motion for summary judgment in this case. However, in addition to representing the respondent in this case, counsel represents the respondent-

commissioner in In re Claims of Racial Disparity, Case No. CV05-4000632-S, Judicial District of Tolland, 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 required to devote significant time to the discovery proceedings in that case. Counsel for the respondent assisted the preparation of the commissioner's response to the petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the special master's ruling on the motion to compel compliance with subpoenas served on the petitioners' expert. Counsel will present argument on the petitioners' motion for reconsideration before the special master on September 16, 2008. Because of the time required to meet his other responsibilities, counsel for the respondent believes that it will take him until September 22, 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 ten days, or until September 22, 2008, to file their cross-motions for summary judgment in this case. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL C. SKAKEL PETITIONER By: WARDEN 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. [phone] Rocky Hill, Connecticut 06067 Fax No. [phone] Tel. No. [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] Fax No. [phone] Federal Bar No. ct 04863 E-mail: [e-mail] Federal Bar No. ct 05318