Alston v. Murphy et al

Filing 10

PRISCS RULING AND ORDER denying 9 Motion for Emergency Relief, Signed by Judge Dominic J. Squatrito on 7/7/11. (Blue, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
IRA ALSTON,
Petitioner,
PRISONER
Case No. 3:10-CV-882 (DJS)(TPS)
V.
BRIAN K. MURPHY, ET AL.
Respondents.

RULING AND ORDER
On June 7, 2010, petitioner Ira Alston, an inmate confined at the Northern Correctional
Institution in Somers, Connecticut, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to an Order issued by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas P. Smith,
the petitioner filed an amended petition on a Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Petition form on July
19, 2010. (Dkt. # 3.) In a Ruling and Order issued on January 24, 2011, Magistrate Judge Smith
granted the petitioner’s motion for leave to file a second amended petition (dkt. # 4) and directed
the petitioner to file his second amended petition on a Section 2254 form. (Dkt. # 6.) In the same
Ruling, Magistrate Judge Smith denied the petitioner’s motion to expedite his habeas petition.
(Id.)
The petitioner subsequently filed an objection to Magistrate Smith’s Ruling and Order for
the stated reason that the requirement in L.Civ. R. 8 that “[P]etitions [for writ of habeas corpus]
and motions shall be on forms approved by the Court and supplied by the Clerk” applies only to
the filing of original petitions and not to amended petitions. (Dkt. # 7.) On March 16, 2011, the
petitioner also filed a “Motion for Emergency Relief,” in which he seeks “an expedited ruling
and/or order in connection with his objection to the magistrate judge ruling and order.” (Dkt. # 9,

at 1.) As stated in the petitioner’s motion, he is “seeking to proceed in this District Court with all
grounds of error asserted in [a] state court [habeas application] due to an alleged un-necessary
delay in resolution in the state court matter . . . . The Petitioner h[as] experienced a 5 yr. delay in
his state court cause of action via writ of habeas corpus.” (Id. at 2, 3.)
As further explained below, the Court OVERRULES the petitioner’s objection (dkt. # 7)
and further DENIES the petitioner’s Motion for Emergency Relief (dkt. # 9).
DISCUSSION
Objection to Magistrate Judge Smith’s Ruling and Order
As previously noted, the petitioner has objected to Magistrate Judge Smith’s Ruling and
Order on the basis that L. Civ. R. 8 does not require that an amended habeas corpus petition, as
opposed to an original petition, be filed “on forms approved by the Court and supplied by the
Clerk.” The Court notes that on February 24, 2011, the petitioner, despite having filed an
objection to Magistrate Judge Smith’s directive to file his second amended petition on a Section
2254 form, did in fact file a second amended petition utilizing a Section 2254 Habeas Corpus
Petition form. (Dkt. # 8.) Consequently, the Court finds the petitioner’s objection to be moot and
overrules the petitioner’s objection.
Petitioner’s Motion for Emergency Relief
Although the petitioner’s Motion for Emergency Relief initially refers to “an expedited
ruling and/or order in connection with his objection to the magistrate judge ruling and order,”
(dkt. # 9, at 1), the overall tenor of that motion indicates that what the petitioner actually seeks is
an expedited ruling on his federal habeas petition. The petitioner contends that the habeas
petition he has filed in this Court presents the same grounds of error raised in his pending state
-2-

court habeas application, and that he is “seeking to proceed in this District Court with all grounds
of error asserted in the state court due to an alleged un-necessary delay in resolution in the state
court matter.” (Dkt. # 9, at 2.) The petitioner states that he has “experienced a 5 yr. delay in his
state court cause of action via writ of habeas corpus.” (Id. at 3.)
In his Motion for Emergency Relief, the petitioner represents that his state court habeas
petition is pending in the Connecticut Superior Court in Docket No. CV 07-4001668-S. (Dkt. #
9, at 2.) The docket sheet for Alston v. Warden, CV-07-4001668-S, currently pending in the
Connecticut Superior Court, indicates that from March 9, 2007, the filing date of the petitioner’s
application for writ of habeas corpus1, until the present time, the petitioner has amended his
complaint on four occasions. (Docket Entry Nos. 114, 121, 140 and 145)2 During that same
time period, eight motions for continuance have been requested and granted – – all by or on
behalf of the petitioner. (Docket Entry Nos. 111, 112, 115, 117, 122, 125, 156 and 160)3 The
Court finds the petitioner’s contention that he has been subjected to unnecessary delays in the
state court proceeding to be inconsistent with the state court record in that proceeding and denies
his Motion for Emergency Relief.
CONCLUSION

1

In his Motion for Emergency Relief, the petitioner indicates that a previous state court habeas application,
Docket No. CV 05-4000303-S, was consolidated with Docket No. CV 07-4001668-S. W hile the Court takes note of
that representation, the Court does not find that circumstance to be significant for purposes of ruling on the
petitioner’s motion.
2

See http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=TSRCV074001668S (last
visited July 5, 2011).
3

Id.

-3-

For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner’s objection to Magistrate Judge Smith’s Ruling
and Order (dkt. # 7) is OVERRULED. Additionally, the petitioner’s Motion for Emergency
Order (dkt. # 9) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED this 7th

day of July, 2011.

___________/s/ DJS ___________________________________
DOMINIC J. SQUATRITO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-