Umar Shahid v. Corrections Officer Paquette (2014)

RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

I

Procedural History

The plaintiff, Umar Shahid, is an inmate at Bridgeport Correctional Center (BCC), alleges that the defendant, a corrections officer, falsely accused him of making a threat against her.   As a result, the plaintiff suffered harm and humiliation, pain and suffering, and mental and emotional distress.   The plaintiff thereafter commenced this action against the defendant.   The defendant has moved to dismiss on the ground that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim because the defendant is protected by both sovereign and statutory immunity as a state employee.

II

DiscussionA. Sovereign Immunity

A suit against a state official in his official capacity is a suit against the state itself and is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.  Miller v. Egan, 265 Conn. 301, 313, 808 A.2d 549 (2003).  “Before a claimant may pursue any monetary claim against the state, if the doctrine of sovereign immunity is applicable, the state must consent to be sued ․ The claims commissioner ․ may waive that immunity, pursuant to General Statutes § 4–160(a), and consent to suit.   Until that happens, however, the Superior Court has no jurisdiction to hear any such monetary claim.”  (Citations omitted.)   Krozser v. New Haven, 212 Conn. 415, 423, 562 A.2d 1080 (1989).   To the extent that the defendant is sued in her official capacity as a state employee, there is no indication that the state has consented to such suit.   The court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim.

B. Statutory Immunity

General Statutes § 4–165(a) provides that “[n]o state officer or employee shall be personally liable for damage or injury, not wanton, reckless or malicious, caused in the discharge of his or her duties or within the scope of his or her employment.   Any person having a complaint for such damage or injury shall present it as a claim against the state under the provisions of this chapter.”   Where a defendant's conduct was wanton, reckless or malicious, however, § 4–165 will not immunize him from suit.   See Witczak v. Gerald, 69 Conn.App. 106, 116, 793 A.2d 1193 (2002).   First, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant was acting within the scope of her employment.   Second, the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege facts indicating that the defendant engaged in wanton, reckless or malicious behavior.   Therefore, the defendant is entitled to immunity pursuant to § 4–165.

III

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the court grants the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

PETER EMMETT WIESE, JUDGE

Wiese, Peter E., J.