Kevin Holmes v. David Dardanelli Correctional Officer et al. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMIENT # 110, 113

FACTS

The plaintiff, Kevin Holmes, who appears pro se, originated this action in small claims court against the defendants, correctional officer David Dardanelli and former warden Jeffrey McGill.   At the time, the plaintiff was incarcerated at Northern Correctional Institution.   By way of defense motion, this action was subsequently transferred to this court.   The defendants filed a “request for more specific statement” on July 29, 2009, to which the plaintiff responded by filing a “plaintiff's more specific statement” on or about September 2, 2009.   The defendants filed an answer and special defenses on December 21, 2009.   On February 11, 2010, the plaintiff filed a document titled “plaintiff's add on statements.”   On February 18, 2010, the plaintiff filed a document titled “plaintiff's more specific statements.”

In the “plaintiff's more specific statement” the plaintiff makes the following allegations.   On January 30, 2008, Dardanelli took his sneakers.   On February 6, 2008, Dardanelli opened his outgoing legal mail that was being sent to his lawyers.   The plaintiff was groped by “c/o Spillane” on July 29, 2008.¹  On February 18, 2008, March 13, 2008, July 29, 2008, September 13, 2008 and on three separate occasions from August 2008 through September 2008, he was harassed by “capt.   Marinelli, CTO. Bokowski, c/o Dreay, c/o Melbourne, c/o Yolie [and] CTO Thompson.”

In the “plaintiff's more specific statements,” the plaintiff alleges that he was harassed and threatened by officer Jones around the time of August 2008 and was harassed and threatened by officer Bradley on September 23, 2010.²  None of the aforementioned individuals have been named as defendants in this case.   The plaintiff also names McGill, who was warden at Northern Correctional Institution, as a defendant, however, no allegations are made against McGill.

The plaintiff filed a “plaintiff's add on statements” on February 11, 2010.   The statement makes further allegations of threats and retaliation from individuals who have not been named as defendants in this case.

On April 15, 2010, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Practice Book § 17-49.   The plaintiff filed an objection on June 2, 2010.   Argument on this motion was heard on June 28, 2010.

DISCUSSION

The defendants make the following arguments in support of their motion for summary judgment.   To the extent the defendants are being sued for money damages in their official capacities, and to the extent that the state of Connecticut has not waived sovereign immunity for this class of cases, and to the extent that plaintiff has not sought declaratory or injunctive relief, the court is without jurisdiction over this matter.   The plaintiff has not alleged that he received permission from the claims commissioner to bring this action and, a result, the claim for money damages against the defendants in their official capacities must be dismissed.   To the extent the defendants are being sued in their individual capacities, they are entitled to statutory immunity.   Lastly, the plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the defendants upon which relief can be granted.   In support of their motion, the defendants attach affidavits from Michelle DeVeau and Dardanelli.

In his objection, the plaintiff re-alleges that Dardanelli stole his property, opened his mail, threatened and harassed him.   Furthermore, the plaintiff argues that Dardanelli also advised other officers to harass, threaten and grope the plaintiff sexually.   In support of his motion, the plaintiff attaches his own unsworn affidavit, dated May 24, 2010.

The court notes that the instant motion is a motion for summary judgment, however since immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction, this court will treat defendants' motion for summary judgment as a motion to dismiss.

“A motion to dismiss ․ properly attacks the jurisdiction of the court, essentially asserting that the plaintiff cannot as a matter of law and fact state a cause of action that should be heard by the court ․ A motion to dismiss test, inter alia, whether, in the face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Beecher v. Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut, 282 Conn. 130, 134, 918 A.2d 880 (2007).

“The plaintiff bears the burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction, whenever and however raised.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. New London, 265 Conn. 423, 430 n. 12, 829 A.2d 801 (2003).  “The burden rests with the party who seeks the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor ․ clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Goodyear v. Discala, 269 Conn. 507, 511, 849 A.2d 791 (2004).  “In determining whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction, every presumption favoring jurisdiction should be indulged.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Connor v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 260 Conn. 435, 443, 797 A.2d 1081 (2002).   Because the doctrines of sovereign immunity and statutory immunity each implicate a court's subject matter jurisdiction, they are appropriate grounds for granting a motion to dismiss.   Although the defendants have raised several grounds in their motion, the court will address only those that are dispositive of the motion.

The doctrine of sovereign immunity protects state officials and employees from lawsuits when they are acting within the scope of their employment.   The doctrine “protect[s] the state against lawsuits as well as protecting against liability, and ‘in effect, [it protects] against having to litigate at all.’   “ Hultman v. Blumenthal, 67 Conn.App. 613, 620, 787 A.2d 666, cert. denied, 259 Conn. 929, 793 A.2d 253 (2002).  “The doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is ․ [the] basis for the granting of a motion to dismiss.”  Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Peabody N.E., Inc., 239 Conn. 93, 99, 680 A.2d 1321 (1996).

“[The Connecticut Supreme Court has] identified the following criteria for determining whether an action against an individual is, in effect, against the state and barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity:  (1) a state official has been sued;  (2) the suit concerns some matter in which that official represents the state;  (3) the state is the real party against whom relief is sought;  and (4) the judgment, though nominally against the official, will operate to control the activities of the state or subject it to liability.”   (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Gordon v. H.N.S. Management Co., 272 Conn. 81, 93-94, 861 A.2d 1160 (2004).  “[T]he identities of the parties are determined by their description in the summons.”  Hultman v. Blumenthal, supra, 67 Conn.App. 620.   Additionally, the court may look to the complaint and the plaintiff's arguments to determine whether the claims are against the defendants in their individual or official capacities.  Miller v. Egan, 265 Conn. 301, 308-09, 828 A.2d 549 (2003).  “If the plaintiff's complaint reasonably may be construed to bring claims against the defendants in their individual capacities, then sovereign immunity would not bar those claims.”   Id., at 307.

In the present case, the addresses for all of the defendants, as listed in the respective small claims writ and notice of suit, are correctional institutions.   The plaintiff's allegations are limited to actions that the defendants undertook within the scope of their employment with the state of Connecticut.   Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that his sneakers were taken and his mail had been opened by Dardanelli.   Furthermore, the plaintiff alleges that he was harassed and groped by coworkers of the defendants.

“In order to overcome sovereign immunity, the plaintiff must do more than allege that the defendants' conduct was in excess of their statutory authority ․ [he] also must allege or otherwise establish facts that reasonably support those allegations.”  Hultman v. Blumenthal, supra, 67 Conn.App. 624.   In the present case, the plaintiff's allegations do not establish that the defendants were acting outside the scope of their employment during the relevant time period.   Thus, the plaintiff cannot overcome the application of the doctrine of sovereign immunity to this matter.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the case is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity and the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims.   The court need not address the defendants' other arguments.   The motion to dismiss is granted as to all defendants.

Marano, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. “c/o Spillane” does not appear as a defendant in this case..  FN1. “c/o Spillane” does not appear as a defendant in this case.

FN2. This court notes that this particular date is incorrect as the motion was filed with the court on March 3, 2010..  FN2. This court notes that this particular date is incorrect as the motion was filed with the court on March 3, 2010.

Marano, Richard M., J.