Damato v. Murphy

Filing 170

PRISCS - RULING AND ORDER denying 164 Motion for Clarification; granting 165 Motion for Clarification; denying 166 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 167 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 168 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 169 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge William I. Garfinkel on 12/17/10. (Corriette, M.)

Damato v. Murphy

Doc. 170

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

GARY DAMATO v. WARDEN MURPHY PRISONER Case No. 3:08cv855(SRU)(WIG)

RULING AND ORDER On August 12, 2009, the court, Underhill, U.S.D.J., denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordered the case closed. 14, 2009. Judgment entered in favor of the respondent on August Now pending are two motions for clarification, a

motion for appointment of counsel, two motions to supplement a previously filed motion for reconsideration and a ninth motion seeking reconsideration of the August 2009 judgment. The Court cannot discern what relief petitioner seeks in his first motion for clarification [Doc. #164]. motion is denied. In the second motion for clarification, petitioner asks the meaning of the Court's granting his previous motion to file a supplement to his motion for reconsideration. clarification [Doc. #165] is granted. The motion for Accordingly, the

Although the Court

permitted petitioner to supplement the prior motion for reconsideration, the Court denied the motion as untimely. See

Dockets.Justia.com

Doc. #158. Petitioner asks the Court to appoint counsel to represent him in this action. This case has been closed for over one year. Petitioner's

The Court does not appoint counsel in closed cases. motion [Doc. #166] is denied.

Petitioner moves to add citations to document #157 and to supplement document #157. The referenced document was a

supplement to a motion for reconsideration that was denied in October 2010. Because the Court already has ruled on the motion,

it will not consider any additional citations or arguments regarding that motion. denied. Finally, petitioner files a ninth motion for reconsideration of the judgment in this case. The time for filing a motion for The motions [Docs. ## 167, 168] are

reconsideration or a motion for relief from judgment has long passed. Motions for reconsideration must be filed within See D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(c)1. In addition, if

fourteen days.

the motion is considered a motion for relief from judgment based on the negligent failure to include all arguments in the prior motions, the motion must be filed within one year of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). [Doc. #169] is denied. In conclusion, petitioner's motion for clarification [Doc. #165] is GRANTED and his remaining motions [Docs. ##164, 166, The motion for reconsideration

2

167, 168, 169] are DENIED. SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut this December 2010. /s/ William I. Garfinkel WILLIAM I. GARFINKEL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17th day of

3