James Harnage v. Brian Murphy (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO DISMISS (# 101)

On April 16, 2010, the defendant, James R. Smith, Claims Commissioner of the State of Connecticut, moved to dismiss this action based upon his absolute immunity from suit, the lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the principle of sovereign immunity and absolute judicial immunity.

On May 19, 2010, the self-represented defendant filed an objection to the motion to dismiss.   In opposition to this motion, the plaintiff misconstrued the motion as being filed on behalf of all defendants when it was filed solely on behalf of the claims commissioner.   Plaintiff further argued that the court, when deciding a jurisdictional question, must consider the allegations of the complaint in a light most favorable to the pleader.   Further, the plaintiff argues that the defendant Smith was not engaged in the exercise of judicial duties when he denied the plaintiff's fee waiver.   The opposition papers also contained numerous arguments relating to defendants other than the claims commissioner.

On March 21, 2011, the parties appeared before the court to argue the motion to strike.

During the course of the argument, the plaintiff revealed that, in fact, the claims commissioner had ultimately granted all of the fee waivers for proceeding that had been initially requested by the plaintiff and that cases raising the substantive claims that Mr. Harnage was pursuing were pending before the Superior Court.   The attorney representing the claims commissioner's office was unable to confirm or deny the statements of the plaintiff and, therefore, the court requested further briefs with regard to the motion to dismiss.   On April 5, 2011, the plaintiff filed an additional brief which confirmed the plaintiff had received fee waivers from the claims commissioner.   On April 8, the claims commissioner filed a supplemental memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss on the added ground that all claims raised by the plaintiff in this suit have been rendered moot because all of his filing fees had been waived with regard to the many claims that he had filed through the Office of the Claims Commissioner.

The court is satisfied that this motion to dismiss should be granted.   The gravamen of the plaintiff's complaints against the claims commissioner was that he improperly denied the plaintiff's application for fee waivers to file claims against the State of Connecticut based upon his treatment as an inmate in various correctional institutions.   There is no dispute now that, in fact, all of the fee waivers applied for have been granted and, therefore, the issues raised by the plaintiff's pleadings against the claims commissioner have, in effect, been resolved due to the subsequent conduct of the claims commissioner.   This action has not been certified as a class action.   There is no practical relief that this court can grant to the plaintiff because, in fact, his indigency applications have been granted.   The Claims Commissioner's motion to dismiss is granted.¹

THE COURT

Cosgrove, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. After hearing oral argument on this motion the court noted that in the electronic pleadings file that on June 9, 2010, the objection to the motion to dismiss had been overruled by the court (Martin, J.), (without written opinion) but no orders were entered with regard to the motion to dismiss.   Neither party seems to have been aware of the prior ruling.   As this court reached the same decision as Judge Martin and was in the process of preparing an opinion, the court continued with this process..  FN1. After hearing oral argument on this motion the court noted that in the electronic pleadings file that on June 9, 2010, the objection to the motion to dismiss had been overruled by the court (Martin, J.), (without written opinion) but no orders were entered with regard to the motion to dismiss.   Neither party seems to have been aware of the prior ruling.   As this court reached the same decision as Judge Martin and was in the process of preparing an opinion, the court continued with this process.

Cosgrove, Emmet L., J.