Free Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Prosecution - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:01-cv-01908-AVC

Document 229

Filed 07/28/2004

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT JOHN WARD Plaintiff v. ROBERT MURPHY, et al. Defendant : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:01CV1908 (AVC)

JULY 27, 2004

MOTION TO DISMISS

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Defendants, employees of the Department of Children and Families, Robert Murphy, Ralph Arnone, Roger Lima, Sandra Liquindoli and Edward Federci, (hereinafter, "State Defendants") hereby move to dismiss the above-captioned action for the plaintiff's failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court's orders, including the order issued on April 14, 2004 to comply with Local Rule 56. The grounds for said Motion are as follows: (1) On November 19, 2003 the State Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, an accompanying memorandum and supporting affidavits. (2) The plaintiff was granted several extensions to file a response to the State Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (3) On February 18, 2004 the plaintiff belatedly responded to the Motion for Summary Judgment by filing a motion for extension of time, which was granted, and a ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED TESTIMONY NOT REQUIRED

Case 3:01-cv-01908-AVC

Document 229

Filed 07/28/2004

Page 2 of 4

motion to deny the State Defendants' motion for summary judgment, along with a supporting memorandum. (4) In the February 18, 2004 memorandum in support of denying the State Defendants' motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule 56. (5) On April 13, 2004 an order was signed by Judge Alfred V. Covello requiring the plaintiff to comply with Local Rule 56 by May 3, 2004. (6) The plaintiff filed and has been granted several motions for extensions of time to comply with the Court's order. The last extension granted was until July 8, 2004 (7) At present, no further action has been taken by the plaintiff to prosecute his claim or to comply with Local Rule 56 despite the Court's order that a failure to comply may lead to sanctions, including deeming the defendant's Local Rule 56(a) statement as being admitted by the plaintiff or granting the defendant's motion. (8) Because the plaintiff has failed to take the proper actions to prosecute his suit since the State Defendants' motion for summary judgment and has failed to comply with the Court's orders, the State Defendants now move for dismissal of the action. This motion is accompanied by a memorandum of law which gives a more in-depth analysis of the defendant's argument. WHEREFORE, because of the plaintiff's failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court's orders, including the order issued on April 14, 2004 to comply with Local Rule 56, the complaint must accordingly be dismissed and the State Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment granted.

Case 3:01-cv-01908-AVC

Document 229

Filed 07/28/2004

Page 3 of 4

THE STATE DEFENDANTS

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY: ____________________________ Carolyn Signorelli Assistant Attorney General Federal Bar No.ct 17534 55 Elm Street, 3rd Fl. Annex Hartford, CT 06l06 Tel: (860) 808-5160 Fax: (860) 808-5384 e-mail:[email protected]

Case 3:01-cv-01908-AVC

Document 229

Filed 07/28/2004

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed in accordance with Rule 5(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on this 27th day of July 2004, first class postage prepaid, to the following counsel of record:

Mr. John Ward 18 Garmella Boulevard Danbury, CT 06810 James Williams, Esq. Williams, Walsh & O'Connor 110 Washington Avenue, 2nd Fl. North Haven, CT 06473 Stephen Fogerty, Esq. Halloran & Sage, LLP 315 Post Road West Westport, CT 06880 Heidi M. Cilano, Esq. Garie J. Mulcahey, Esq. Bai, Pollock, Blueweiss & Mulcahey, P.C. 10 Middle Street Bridgeport, CT 06604

_____________________________ Carolyn A. Signorelli Assistant Attorney General