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

5 . - Case 3:00-cv—OO720-JCH Document 78 Filed O4/10/2006 Page 1 of m__kw—k
O O
l fill aaa ,. l
i UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT -
j msrmcr or CONNECTICU'1Ymli1 APR l U ln ’ 52
j WILLIAM CONNELLY : CIVIL
j Plaz'ntw' `
W V. ‘
i DAVID COSGROVE, ET AL APRIL 6, 2006
Defendants \
DEFENDANT’S MOTION NUNC PRO TUNC FOR AN EXTENSI N
i OF TIME TO FILE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT t
The defendants respectfully move, num: pro tune, for a thirty day extension i f time, from
i today’s date to May 6, 2006, to file for summary judgment. While the defendants cognize that 3
l
they missed the February 14, 2006 deadline to iile for summary judgment, the issu ' in this case
are ripe for summary judgment. The plaintiffs claims lack legal merit and woul d not likely
survive a Rule 50 motion at the close of the plaintiffs evidence at trial. Moreover, in the time it
may take the Court to appoint an attorney for the plaintiff and for that attorney t prepare the
case for trial, a ruling could be issued on the summary judgment motion. And reg Q dless of the I
outcome of that motion, it will be of benefit to both the court and appointed counsil because in
the unlikely event it is not granted in its entirety, it will streamline and distill the is ues for trial,
thereby resulting in a shorter and more manageable trial.
A brief review of some of the plaintiffs claims will demonstrate the need and orthiness
of a motion for summary judgment. For instance, the plaintiff has claimed that his nsfer to
Virginia for incarceration was unlawful. However, this is not the law. See Olim v. _ akinekomz,

"rr+#*?i
i"i‘i
..........
nlnl
....... . . .
..... i _
'i'i`
.........
D '``‘‘

{ ~ ‘ Case 3:00-cv-00720-%C5H Document 78 Filed O4/10/$6 Page 2 of il
1 E
1
. 1
461 U.S. 238, 248, 75 L. Ed. 2d 813, 103 S. Ct. 1741 (1983) (inmates have no right io be I
confined in a particular state or a particular prison within a given state). The transfei of an
i inmate from one correctional facility to another, without more, does not violate the i ate's
i constitutional rights, even where conditions in one prison are "more disagreeable" or the prison
i has "more severe rules." Meacham v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225, 49 L. Ed. 2d 451, 9 S. Ct. 2532
(1976). The plaintiff has also claimed that the defendants violated his rights by sear hing his i
i
cell, however this too lacks merit, as there can be no liability for the lawful exercise fthe duties i
of a correctional officer to conduct a cell search. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 51 (1984) (no H
right of privacy or to be free from cell searches). Additionally, the plaintiff does not ave a right
to aprison job. See Santiago v. Commissioner of Correction, 39 Conn. App. 674, 6 0, 667 A.2d
1
304,307 (1995) ("A prisoner has no property or liberty interest in prison employmen ..."); a
Manley v. Bronson, 657 F. Supp. 832, 840 (D.Conn. 1987) (no right to prison job). lso, his
allegation that the defendants depleted the prison library lacks legal merit since a pri oner does i
not have a legal right to a prison library. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (19 6). In
Connecticut, adequate access to court is provided by persons trained in the law. See mith v.
Armstrong, 3:93CVl 537(J GM), United States District Court for the District of Conn cticut, 968
F. Supp. 40; (D. Conn. 1996 ) (Holding that Inmates Legal Assistance to Prisoners eets the
Commissioners obligation to provide access to court). [
As the foregoing example demonstrates, there are sound legal grounds for a su mary
judgment motion. While the defendants understand this Court’s reluctance to grant extension `
of time given the age of this case, this is not a frivolous motion, and all of the time d lay in the
i
2 i
i
i
````` ` " _`—`"

Y .. . ·~ Case 3:00-cv-00720-{SH Document 78 Filed O4/10/$6 Page 3 of I
i i
progression of this case has been due to actions of the plaintiff by continuously ame ding his
complaint and moving for repeated extensions of time. The undersigned counsel fo - the
E defendants is aware of the need to move this case forward and thus is requesting a v ry short
{ period of time in which to file for stunmary judgment. If the undersigned were not ing to be `
l engaged with trial before the Honorable Janet Arterton over the next two weeks, this Motion F
would only be seeking two weeks time instead of four. In furtherance of their instan request for R
an extension of time, the defendants propose that this Court continue with its search d
appointment of trial counsel for the plaintiff while the motion for summary judgmen is pending,
thus ensuring a prompt trial in the unlikely event summary judgment is denied in wh le or in
part. l
WHEREFORE, the defendants respectfully request that their Motion, mmc p 0 tunc, for a
thirty day Extension of Time to May 6, 2006, to tile for summary judgment, be grant dl. \
i
i

i
I

\ ____ _
g ~» · ~ Case 3:00-cv-00720-JCH Document 78 Filed O4/10/2006 Page 4 of ·. I
l U O I
l l
l l
N DEFENDANTS
l COSGROVE, ET AL
i RICHARD BLUMENTHAI y I
l ATTO EY GENE I I. I
l » BY: 4/ °= z¤!" I RRRR
1 Robert B. Fiske, II `
Assistant Attorney General l
Office of the Attorney Gene al _
110 Sherman Street i
Hartford, CT 06105 I
Federal Bar #ct1 783 1 p
Tel.: (860) 808-5450 l
Fax: (860) 808-5591 l
E-Mail: [email protected] .ct.us I
CERTIFICATION 1
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed to the following o this, the 7th
day of April, 2006, to: R
Mr. William Connelly, #189009 l
Enfield Correctional Institution V ‘ l
289 Shaker Road { ' '
Enfield, CT 06082 ‘ -» N
*1 , __
.... , · A A
Robert B. Fiske, III
Assistant Attorney General -

l
I
E
l
I
` I
4 a
i 9
_‘”‘”`l` ‘"”““F”“i