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

Case 3:03-cv-00676-WWE

Document 22

Filed 09/21/2006

Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

EMMANUEL SMITH Petitioner, v. JOHN TARASCIO, et al., Respondents.

: : : : :

PRISONER Case No. 3:03CV676 (RNC)

SEPTEMBER 15, 2006

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Pursuant to Rule 7(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the District of Connecticut, the respondent hereby requests, nunc pro tunc, an extension of time of two hundred twenty-five days, or until April 23, 2007, to file his response to the petitioner's habeas corpus petition. This is the respondent's first request for an extension of time with respect to this court's order to respond to the petitioner's habeas corpus petition. The undersigned counsel was unable to contact the pro se petitioner in this case to determine whether he objects to the respondent's request because the petitioner is currently a prisoner in the Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers, Connecticut. The grounds for this motion are as follows: 1. The petitioner was convicted of possession of narcotics, in violation of

General Statutes § 21a-279(a), after trial by jury. On January 31, 2003, the trial court sentenced the petitioner to imprisonment for seven years. The petitioner appealed and the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed his conviction. State v. Smith, 94 Conn. App. 188, 891 A.2d 974 (2006). The petitioner filed a petition for certification to appeal from the

Case 3:03-cv-00676-WWE

Document 22

Filed 09/21/2006

Page 2 of 5

decision of the Appellate Court that was denied by the Connecticut Supreme Court. State v. Smith, 278 Conn. 906, 897 A.2d 100 (2006). 2. The petitioner filed a state petition for a writ of habeas corpus that was

dismissed in the Superior Court on October 17, 2005. The petitioner appealed from the ruling o the state habeas court's ruling and his appeal is currently pending in the Connecticut Appellate Court. On December 27, 2005, the petitioner filed a second state habeas corpus petition which is currently pending in the Connecticut Superior Court. 3. The petitioner filed this petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus on or about

April 11, 2003. He filed an amended petition on or about January 22, 2004 and a second amended petition on or about March 11, 2004. On August 3, 2006, this court issued an order to show cause directing the petitioner to serve a copy of the show cause order and his second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the respondent by August 14, 2006. The show cause order directed the respondent to file his response by September 5, 2006. 4. Counsel for the respondent in this case also represents the respondent in

Denby v. Commissioner of Correction, No. 05-5467-pr, an appeal currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and is currently engaged in writing the respondent-appellee's brief in that case. Counsel for the respondent has requested an extension of time from the Second Circuit to file his brief in Denby on October 30, 2006. Counsel expects that he will be able to file his brief with the Second Circuit by that date. 5. In addition, counsel for the respondent also represents the respondent-

warden in Webb v. Warden, CV00-0003239, Judicial District of Tolland. Webb is a state 2

Case 3:03-cv-00676-WWE

Document 22

Filed 09/21/2006

Page 3 of 5

habeas corpus case in which the petitioner is challenging his capital felony conviction and death sentence. Both parties have filed their post trial briefs in Webb and counsel for the respondent expects that he will required to present oral argument on the issues raised by the petitioner to the state habeas court sometime during October. Counsel for the respondent also represents the Commissioner of Correction in Bryant v. Commissioner of Correction, Appellate Court No. 26513. The petitioner in Bryant was convicted of

manslaughter in the beating death of an individual in a dispute over drugs. The state habeas court granted the petitioner a new trial after finding that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Commissioner of Correction appealed from the judgment of the habeas court. Both parties have submitted their briefs to the Connecticut Appellate Court and counsel for the respondent anticipates that he will be ordered to present oral argument to the Appellate Court sometime during October. 6. Counsel for the respondent, who is a member of the U.S. Army Reserve, is

schedule to report to Fort Huachuca, Arizona, for a period of active duty training on September 18, 2006. After completing military training, counsel for the respondent will return to his office on October 2, 2006. Counsel for the respondent also anticipates that he will be required to perform military duties at Fort Bragg, North Carolina from October 16 to October 20, 2006. 7. In addition to representing the Commissioner of Correction in this case,

counsel for the respondents represents the warden in other habeas corpus cases pending before the district court. Counsel for the respondent represents the warden in Santiago v. Dzurenda, Case No. 3:05CV110 (AHN). Counsel has filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file a response to the habeas corpus petition in that case to November 3

Case 3:03-cv-00676-WWE

Document 22

Filed 09/21/2006

Page 4 of 5

27, 2006.

Counsel for the respondent also represents the warden in Lewis v.

Commissioner of Correction, Case No. 3:05CV1982 (PCD)(JGM). Counsel has filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file a response to the habeas corpus petition in that case to December 21, 2006. Counsel for the respondent also represents the warden in Diaz v. Lantz, et al., Case No. 3:05CV135 (PCD)(JGM). Counsel has filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file a response to the habeas corpus petition in that case to January 27, 2007. Counsel for the respondent also represents the warden in Pittman v. Dzurenda, Case No. 3:05CV934(AVC). Counsel has filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file a response to the habeas corpus petition in that case to February 26, 2007. Counsel for the respondent also represents the warden in Bailey v. Lantz, Case No. 3:05CV291 (AVC). Counsel has filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file a response to the habeas corpus petition in that case to March 26, 2007. 8. Counsel for the respondent will be able to begin work on the response to the

petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this case after he files his memorandum in opposition in Bailey v. Lantz. Counsel for the respondent believes that it will take approximately three weeks to prepare an adequate response to the claims raised by the petitioner in this case.

4

Case 3:03-cv-00676-WWE

Document 22

Filed 09/21/2006

Page 5 of 5

WHEREFORE, the respondent hereby moves this court for an extension of time, nunc pro tunc, to file his response to the petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus until April 23, 2007. Respectfully submitted, WARDEN JOHN TARASCIO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION STATE OF CONNECTICUT THERESA C. LANTZ COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION STATE OF CONNECTICUT RESPONDENTS

By: ____________________________________ MICHAEL E. O'HARE Supervisory Assistant State's Attorney Civil Litigation Bureau Office of the Chief State's Attorney 300 Corporate Place Rocky Hill, Connecticut 06067 Tel. No. (860) 258-5887 Fax No. (860) 258-5968 Federal Bar No. ct 05318

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed, postage prepaid, first class mail, to Emmanuel B. Smith, Jr., Inmate No. 232549, Osborn Correctional Institution, 100 Bilton Road, P.O. Box 100, Somers, Connecticut 06071, on September 15, 2006. _________________________________ MICHAEL E. O'HARE Supervisory Assistant State's Attorney 5