Free Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 110

Filed 05/24/2006

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

04-cv-1067-REB-CBS

WILLIAM R. CADORNA, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant.

UNOPPOSED MOTION BY PLAINTIFF FOR ADDITIONAL ONE-DAY EXTENSION OF JURY INSTRUCTIONS, VERDICT FORMS, STATEMENTS OF CLAIMS, AND JURY INSTRUCTION BRIEFS

Pa t Wia R C d ra( lni ) lni l m . a on " a t "hereby moves for extension of the if l f i P if f deadline for filing of proposed jury instructions, verdict forms, statements of claims or defenses to the jury, and briefs concerning proposed jury instructions from Wednesday, May 24, 2006, to and including Thursday, May 25, 2006. As grounds for this Unopposed Motion, Plaintiff states: 1. On May 17, 2006, the parties filed and were granted a stipulated motion

for extension of the jury instruction, etc., deadline from Monday, May 22, 2006 to today, Wednesday, May 24, 2006. 2. Pa t 'c u s l as l pa to e.T o g h h s e oe e tn i lnis o n e i o rct n r h u h e a d v td x s e if f s e i i e v

time during the preceding several days, including substantial time over the weekend, to

1

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 110

Filed 05/24/2006

Page 2 of 5

further researching the many subtle nuances of §1983 jurisprudence implicated by his malicious prosecution and substantive due process claims, and attempting to formulate instructions that comport with prevailing doctrine on these issues, e.g., Pierce v. Gilchrist, 359 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2004), the instructions he has thus far produced are very cumbersome and far less than ideal. 3. There remains insufficient time in which to both prepare instructions that

aea e u t, o s l i o p s gc u s l i rs e totep re 'e p cv r d q ae c n u wt p o i o n e wt e p c t h at srs e te t h n h i i proposed instructions, and complete the painstaking and time-consuming process of filing the proposed or stipulated instructions i a c ra c wt teC ut n cod n e i h o rs h ' requirements. 4. T iin t u t l k f i e c o c u s l p r T epo e s f h s o d e o a o di n e n o n es at h rc s o s c l g ' .

researching and pondering these instructions has been his principal professional focus fr s o tep s w e .Ima i ta b d et tefc Pa t 'c u s l o s o mo t fh a t e k t yn e d e u o h a t lnis o n e d e not s if f have years of experience in §1983 litigation, this being his first, quite reluctant, venture into a field he avoided for most of his career because, notwithstanding the initial intellectual attractiveness of dealing with constitutional issues, §1983 litigation has always seemed to him to exist in a parallel universe in which the unstated goal of the courts has been, out of understandable impatience with the post-mo en t h e' d ri w i r s n s concept of what passes for a constitutional right, e.g., cable TV on death row, or the right to be free from being hit by a speeding ambulance when you ignore its siren, to define many constitutional rights out of existence. The unfortunate consequence is that

2

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 110

Filed 05/24/2006

Page 3 of 5

the courts have often given abusive public bureaucracies a virtual license to steal wellfounded constitutional rights with practical impunity. 5. The pressure of time ic mp u d db Pa t 'c u s l u fr n t s o o n e y lnis o n es not ae if f ' u

failure in preparing the previously granted motion for extension to take into account the fact that te"o t u t n c rmo y o h ti 1 y a-old daughters and their eighth h c ni ai " ee n fr i wn 4 e r n o s grade classmates, who will begin high school next year, is tonight. Needless to say, his presence at that ceremony is mandatory. This case has already interfered with his life and burdened him personally and financially far more than he ever intended when he agreed to represent Plaintiff in the Civil Service Commission proceedings alone, and explicitly abjured any subsequent court litigation that might be required out of deeply felt disgust with our system of government and judicial system, and correspondingly strong desire to exit the litigation business entirely.Pa t 'c u s l n t b u t p r t lnis o n e i o a o to emi if f s this case to put him in the position of disappointing or hurting the people he most cherishes in life. 6. Yet, because Plaintiff has depended on his undersigned counsel to

protect his rights and, ironically, immerse himself in a plethora of rather complex lg t no Pa t 'b h l h nn o ee ew u , lni'c u s l a n tun d i ai n lnis e a w e o n l o l Pa t s o n e h s o tre t o i if f f s d if f his back on Plaintiff, and has increasingly become so personally and professionally outraged by the conduct of the City of Denver throughout this case that he is determined to see Plaintiff have his day in the first tribunal where he stands a decent chance of a fair hearing.

3

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 110

Filed 05/24/2006

Page 4 of 5

7.

Pa t 'c u s l n tih n rb C ut a eac o e h v Pa t lnis o n e a d h o oa l o rh v if f s e h i : a e lni c if f

engage in cursory consultation with Defendant concerning their respective instructions and file a bunch of non-stipulated instructions ta, t a t Pa t 'c s , ib h ta l s i lnis a e wl e e n if f l less than o t l r rn Pa t 'c u s l n moed ynw i t w r o pi , ga t lnis o n e o e r a i h h o ok n ma o if f c instructions, etc., and consult with counsel, and significantly enhance the likelihood that the parties will reduce the amount of teC ut t l e tk nu wt i t co h o rs i a ra e p i n r t n ' me t h su i review and negotiation. 8. In compliance with D.C. COLO.LCivR. 7.1(A), the undersigned certifies

that he consulted with opposing counsel concerning the subject of this motion, and that, although opposing counsel would not join in the motion, and certainly does not share the views reflected herein, he very courteously and constructively stated he would not oppose it. 9. The undersigned further acknowledges that this motion for extension does

not comply with REB Civ. Practice Standard II.G.2, as it has been filed less than three business days prior to the due date, but expresses the hope that the Court will nevertheless recognize that granting it will promote judicial efficiency, even while this C ut pe u dd d i fr lni'c u s l v w ma moi t i tews . o rs rs me i a o Pa t s o n es i s y tae t h r i ' s n if f ' e v o e WHEREFORE, good cause having been shown, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this honorable Court grant extension of the deadline for the filing of proposed jury instructions, proposed verdict forms, statements of claims to the jury, and jury instruction briefs, from today, Wednesday, May 24, 2006 to and including tomorrow, Thursday, May 25, 2006.

4

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 110

Filed 05/24/2006

Page 5 of 5

DATED this 24th day of May, 2006.

Respectfully submitted,

/S/

Mark E. Brennan

Mark E. Brennan, P.C. P.O. Box 2556 Centennial, CO. 80161-2556 (303) 552-9394 (office) (303) 797-7687 (cell) [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In compliance with D.C.COLO.LCivR. 6.1(D), the undersigned hereby certifies that, on this 24th day of May, 2006, he served a copy of the foregoing Unopposed Motion for one-day extension on the following person(s) via electronic mail: Mr. William R. Cadorna 5503 S. Moore Street Littleton, CO. 80127 [email protected] Jack Wesoky, Esq. 210 W. Colfax, Dept 1108 Denver, CO. 80202 [email protected]

/S/

Mark E. Brennan

5