Skakel v. Murphy

Filing 35

MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Peter J. Murphy. (O'Hare, Michael)

Skakel v. Murphy

Doc. 35

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

MICHAEL C. SKAKEL, Petitioner, v. PETER J. MURPHY, Respondent.

: : : : :

Case No. 3:07 CV 1625 (PCD)

OCTOBER 28, 2008

MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE BRIEF IN EXCESS OF FORTY PAGES The respondent hereby moves this court for permission to file a memorandum of law in support of his motion for summary judgment that exceeds the forty page limit set forth in Local Rule 7(a)2. The respondent seeks to file a memorandum of law that is seventy-six pages in length. In support of this motion, counsel for the respondent states: 1. On June 7, 2002, the petitioner was convicted of murder, in violation of

General Statutes § 53a-54a, in the Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk. 2. On August 29, 2002, the trial court, Kavanewsky, J., sentenced the petitioner

to imprisonment for a term of twenty years to life. 3. The petitioner appealed and his conviction was affirmed by the Connecticut

Supreme Court on January 24, 2006. State v. Skakel, 276 Conn. 633, 888 A.2d 985, cert. denied, 4. U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 578, 166 L.Ed.2d 428 (2006).

On November 5, 2007, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. 5. On March 5, 2008, this court ordered the petitioner and the respondent to

file cross-motions for summary judgment in the case.

Dockets.Justia.com

6.

On October 27, 2008, the petitioner filed a motion for permission to file a one

hundred and twenty-eight page memorandum of law in support of his motion for summary judgment. Counsel for the respondent did not object to the petitioner's motion. 7. In order to properly address the issues presented by the petition for a writ of

habeas corpus in this case, it was necessary for respondent's counsel to prepare a seventy-six page memorandum of law in support of his motion for summary judgment. Counsel for the respondent believes that an oversize memorandum of law is necessary in this case because of the length of the record, which must be described in some detail, and the number and complexity of the petitioner's claims. 8. Thoro ugh briefing of the issues by both parties in the case will assist the court

in reaching an appropriate disposition of the petitioner's application for federal habeas corpus relief. 9. On October 27, 2008, counsel for the respondent contacted Attorney Sandra

L. Snaden, counsel for the petitioner, by telephone, and informed her that counsel for the respondent intended to seek permission to file an oversize memorandum of law. Attorney Snaden indicated that she had no objection to the respondent's request.

2

W HEREFORE, the respondent's request for permission to file a seventy-six page memorandum of law in support of his motion for summary judgment should be granted.

Respectfully submitted, PETER J. MURPHY, WARDEN MacDOUGALL-WALKER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION STATE OF CONNECTICUT RESPONDENT By: /s/ Michael E. O'Hare MICHAEL E. O'HARE Supervisory Assistant State's Attorney Civil Litigation Bureau Office of the Chief State's Attorney 300 Corporate Place Rocky Hill, Connecticut 06067-1829 Tel. No. [phone] Fax No. [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] Federal Bar No. ct 05318

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed, first class postage prepaid, to counsel for the petitioner: Attorney Hope C. Seeley, Attorney Hubert J. Santos and Attorney Sandra L. Snaden, Santos and Seeley, P.C., 51 Russ Street, Hartford, Connecticut, 06106, Tel. No. [phone], Fax No. [phone], on October 28, 2008. /s/ Michael E. O'Hare MICHAEL E. O'HARE Supervisory Assistant State's Attorney 3