Skakel v. Murphy
Third MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 30 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment until January 15, 2009 by 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)
JANUARY 16, 2009
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH SCHEDULING ORDER Pursuant to Rule 7(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the District of Connecticut, the respondent hereby requests, nunc pro tunc, an extension of time of eight days, or until January 15, 2009, to file his memorandum in opposition to petitioner's motion for summary judgment. Attorney Hope C. Seeley, the petitioner's counsel, has no
objection to the respondent's request. 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 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 which 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 October 8, 2008, the parties filed nine joint
motions for an extension of time to file their cross-motions for summary judgment, all of which were granted by the court. 7. The parties filed their cross-motions for summary judgment in compliance
with the court's order on October 27, 2008. 8. On November 6, the parties filed a joint motion for extension of time seeking
permission to file their responses to the cross-motions for summary judgment by December 17, 2008. On November 7, 2008, this court granted the joint motion.
On December 16, the parties filed a second joint motion for extension of time
seeking permission to file their responses to the cross-motions for summary judgment by January 7, 2008. On December 17, 2008, this court granted the second joint motion. 9. On January 7, 2009, the petitioner filed his response to the motion for
summary for summary judgment filed by the respondent. 10. Counsel for the respondent was unable to file his response to the petitioner's
motion for summary judgment by the previous deadline because his memorandum in opposition took longer than anticipated to prepare. In addition, counsel for the respondent was delayed in completing the memorandum because of his responsibilities as the supervisor of the Civil Litigation Bureau of the Chief State's Attorney's Office. These responsibilities included preparing attorneys assigned to the Civil Litigation Bureau for oral argument in the Appellate Court in Omar Zabian v. Commissioner of Correction, Appellate Court Case No. 29076, and Francis Borrelli v. Commissioner of Correction, Appellate Court Case No. 29238. In addition, counsel for the respondent assisted attorneys assigned to the Civil Litigation Bureau in preparing for trial in Ryan Thompson v. Warden, Case No. CV01-0811262, Judicial District of Tolland, and Khari Miller v. Warden, Case No. CV064000878, Judicial District of Tolland. 10. The respondent's memorandum in opposition to the petitioner's motion for
summary judgment was completed and submitted to the court on January 15, 2009. 11. On January 15, 2009, counsel for the respondent contacted Attorney Hope
Seel ey, counsel for the petitioner, and advised her that the respondent was requesting an extension of time to file his opposition to the petitioner's motion for summary judgment. Attorney Seeley indicated that she had no objection to the respondent's request. 3
W HEREFORE, the respondent hereby moves this court, nunc pro tunc, for an extension of time of eight days, or until January 15, 2009, to file his memorandum in opposition to the petitioner's motion for summary judgment on his application for a writ of habeas corpus in this case. 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 Tel. No. (860) 258-5887 Fax No. (860) 258-5968 Federal Bar No. ct 05318
CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed, first class postage prepaid, to Attorney Hope C. Seeley, Attorney Hubert J. Santos, and Attorney Sandra L. Snaden, Santos & Seeley P.C., 51 Russ Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06106, on January 16, 2009. /s/ Michael E. O'Hare MICHAEL E. O'HARE Supervisory Assistant State's Attorney
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?