Skakel v. Murphy
First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 43 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas CorpusFirst MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 47 MOTION for Hearing To Set Bail, 45 First MOTION to Stay re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 30 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment, 34 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment until February 9, 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 23, 2009
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PETITIONER'S MOTIONS Pursuant to Rule 7(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the District of Connecticut, the respondent hereby requests an extension of time of eleven days, or until February 9, 2009, to file his response to the three motions filed by the petitioner on January 8, 2009. This is the respondent's first request for an extension of time to respond to the petitioner's motions. 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 directing the respondent to file a response to the petitioner's habeas corpus petition. 4. The respondent filed his answer to the allegations in the petitioner's habeas
corpus petition on December 21, 2008. 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 and December 16, 2008, the parties filed joint motions for
extensions of time to file their responses to the cross-motions for summary judgment. Both motions were granted by the court, the second of which directed the parties to file their responses to the motions for summary judgment by January 7, 2009. 9. On January 7, 2009, the petitioner filed his response to the motion for
summary judgment filed by the respondent in compliance with the court's order. 2
On January 15, 2009, the respondent filed his response to the motion for
summary judgment filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the court granted the respondent's motion seeking permission to file his response on January 15. 11. On January 8, 2009, the petitioner filed a motion for leave to amend his
habeas corpus petition, a motion for stay and abeyance and a motion for a hearing to set bail. Responses to the petitioner's motion for leave to amend and motion for stay and abeyance are currently due on January 29, 2009. 12. Counsel for the respondent is currently engaged in preparing responses to
the motions filed by the petitioner on January 8, 2009. In his motion for leave to amend, the petitioner is attempting to add seven new claims to his habeas corpus petition. An appropriate response to the petitioner's motions will require sufficient time for analysis of both the law and the facts pertaining to the new claims. In addition, counsel for the petitioner, who is a member of the U.S. Army Reserve, is scheduled to perform military duty with his unit at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, from January 26 to January 30, 2009. Acco rdin gly, counsel for the respondent believes that it will require eleven more days to prepare an adequate responses to the petitioner's motions 13. On January 23, 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 respond to the motions filed by the petitioner. Attorney Seeley indicated that she had no objection to the respondent's request.
WHEREFORE, the respondent hereby moves this court for an extension of time of eleven days, or until February 9, 2009, to file his responses to the petitioner's motion for leave to amend his petition, motion for stay and abeyance and motion for a hearing to set bail. 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 23, 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?