Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Daniel Perez, Jr. v. State of Connecticut et al.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
An inmate, Daniel Perez, Jr., attempts to sue the State of Connecticut, the Secretary of State, the General Assembly and the leaders of both chambers, the Superior Court, and Warden Torres for money damages for enacting and enforcing against him a purportedly unconstitutional statute, viz. General Statutes § 53a-167c. The plaintiff contends that § 53a-167c violates various provisions of the state and federal constitutions. The defendants move to dismiss this case based on sovereign immunity.
It is abundantly clear that the defendants are either branches of state government or state officials acting in their official capacities. The plaintiff asserts no claim that the state has waived or relinquished sovereign immunity in any form or fashion.
Because the state can only act through its officers, agents or employees, a suit against state officials in their official capacities is, in effect, an action against the state itself. Doe v. Heintz, 204 Conn. 17, 31 (1987). In the absence of legislative waiver or permission of the claims commissioner, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to render an award of monetary damages against the state or a state official acting in that capacity. Krozser v. New Haven, 212 Conn. 425, 420 (1989).
Sovereign immunity shields the defendants from lawsuits for money damages based on claims of violations of both the state and federal constitutions. Krozser v. New Haven, supra, 422. The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars monetary damage awards premised on claims of federal constitutional violations against a state, its departments or agencies, and state officials acting in their official capacities on behalf of a state. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 98-100 (1984).
The motion to dismiss is granted because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the plaintiff's claims against these defendants who are protected by sovereign immunity.
Sferrazza, J.
Sferrazza, Samuel J., J.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: TTDCV105005338S
Decided: April 12, 2010
Court: Superior Court of Connecticut.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)