Jorge Hector Rodriquez v. Anthony Coletti (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO DISMISS (NO. 103)

On May 28, 2010, the defendant filed the present motion to dismiss along with a memorandum of law.   The plaintiff did not file an objection.   The motion to dismiss challenges the sufficiency of the service of process at the commencement of the action.

FACTS

The undisputed facts relevant to this motion are as follows:  The plaintiff is an inmate at the Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center (facility),¹ which is located in Uncasville, Connecticut and operated by the Connecticut Department of Correction.   The defendant is the warden of this facility.   The plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and makes various claims of violations of his civil and constitutional rights by the staff of the facility.   Appended to the plaintiff's complaint (# 100.31) is the return of service dated March 12, 2010.   The return contains typewritten as well as handwritten text.   The typewritten text reads, in relevant part:  “Then and there by virtue hereof, I left a true and attested copy of this the original Writ, Summons and Complaint-with and in the hands-at the usual place of abode-of the within named defendant _ AT SAID _.” Following “within named defendant,” the marshal handwrote “Anthony Coletti (Warden) with his secretary.”   Following “AT SAID,” the marshal handwrote “Corrigan CI 986 Norwich NL TPK Uncasville.”   There are no other returns of service in the file.

DISCUSSION

This action must be dismissed because the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant due to the plaintiff's failure to serve him with process in accordance with General Statutes §§ 52-57(a) or 52-64.   If the complaint is read to allege a claim against the defendant in his personal capacity the plaintiff failed to serve him in his individual capacity per § 52-57(a) because the marshal did not either physically give the defendant a copy of the process or leave it at the defendant's usual place of abode.   If the complaint is read to allege a claim against the defendant in his official capacity, the plaintiff did not serve him in an official capacity per § 52-64 because he did not have the marshal deliver the process to the Attorney General.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted.

Cosgrove, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The plaintiff refers to the facility as the “Corrigan Correctional Institution.”   According to the website of the department of correction, however, Corrigan Correctional Institution was merged with the Radgowski Correctional Institution in May 2001, to form the Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center..  FN1. The plaintiff refers to the facility as the “Corrigan Correctional Institution.”   According to the website of the department of correction, however, Corrigan Correctional Institution was merged with the Radgowski Correctional Institution in May 2001, to form the Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center.

Cosgrove, Emmet L., J.