Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:01-cv-01908-AVC

Document 228

Filed 07/08/2004

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 8, 2004

STATE DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Pursuant to F. R. of Civ. Proc. 6(b) and to D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(b)(2) and (3) , the Defendants, employees of the Department of Children and Families, Robert Murphy, Ralph Arnone, Roger Lima, Sandra Liquindoli, and Edward Federci, (hereinafter, "State Defendants") herein object to the plaintiff's motion for extension of time filed 7/2/04 requesting an extension of time until 7/6/04. The grounds for said objection are as follows: (1) (2) The plaintiff did not seek counsel for the State Defendants' position on the motion. The plaintiff was just granted a motion for extension of time until 6/28/04, with which he

failed to comply. (3) This is the plaintiff's 7th motion for extension of time regarding his response to the State

Defendants' motion for summary judgment. a) 1/5/2004 motion for extension of time to 1/9/2004, granted until 1/12/2004. b) 1/12/2004 motion for extension of time until 1/23/2004, granted until 1/23/04. c) 2/18/2004 motion for extension of time until 2/19/2004, granted until 2/19/2004. d) 5/4/2004 motion for extension of time until 5/12/2004, granted until 5/12/2004. e) 6/17/2004 motion for extension of time until 6/21/2004, granted until 6/21/2004. ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED TESTIMONY NOT REQUIRED

Case 3:01-cv-01908-AVC

Document 228

Filed 07/08/2004

Page 2 of 4

f) 6/23/2004 motion for extension of time until 6/28/2004, granted until 6/28/2004. (3) The plaintiff's requests for extensions of time are based on his inability to articulate a

good argument. This is an insufficient basis to extend litigation and subject the State Defendants to continued uncertainty regarding the pendency of this lawsuit. He has not provided the court with a "particularized showing" as to why there is good cause for the requested extension as required by D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(b)(2). (4) The plaintiff has failed to properly respond to the State Defendants' motion for summary

judgment. On 1/26/2004 he did respond by filing a motion to deny the summary judgment. The plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule 56 and was ordered by the court on 4/13/2004 to comply with Local Rule 56. (5) The plaintiff failed to comply with the court's order and has made 3 more motions for

extension of time, all of which have been improper. (6) The plaintiff's current motion for extension of time is untimely. He has not properly

sought an enlargement of time pursuant to F. R. Civ. Proc. 6(b). (7) The plaintiff also filed a motion to delay proceedings on 1/26/2004 pending the result of

his motion for release of records in Superior Court for juvenile matters. This motion was denied on 2/3/2004. (8) The motion does not address the plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's order to

properly respond to the State Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff is seeking the extension to make additional arguments regarding the juvenile records, when his prior request to delay has been denied . He was subsequently ordered to comply with Local Rule 56, which he has failed to do.

Case 3:01-cv-01908-AVC

Document 228

Filed 07/08/2004

Page 3 of 4

(9)

The plaintiff has made 18 motions for extension of time since the complaint against the

State Defendants' was filed on 10/10/2001.The Court has already granted an inordinate degree of leniency to this pro se plaintiff. The extensive delays caused by the plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's scheduling orders are prejudicial to the State Defendants.

Wherefore, the State Defendants respectfully object to plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time and respectfully request that the Motion be denied and the State Defendants' objection be sustained. The state Defendants also respectfully request that an order be issued indicating that no further extensions of time be granted in this matter.

STATE DEFENDANTS BY: RICHARD BLUMENTHAL ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ______________________________ Carolyn Signorelli Assistant Attorney General Federal Bar No.ct 17534 55 Elm Street, 3rd Fl. Annex Hartford, CT 06106 Tel: (860) 808-5160 Fax: (860) 808-5384 e-mail: [email protected]

Case 3:01-cv-01908-AVC

Document 228

Filed 07/08/2004

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 8th day of July, 2004, first class postage prepaid, to: Mr. John Ward 18 Garmella Boulevard Danbury, CT 06810 James Williams, Esq. Williams, Walsh & O'Connor 110 Washington Avenue, 2nd Floor 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