Kenya Brown v. Deputy Warden Bates et al. (2015)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff in this action, Kenya Brown, is in the custody of the Department of Correction of the State of Connecticut.   The defendants are employees of the Department of Correction of the State of Connecticut.

A.

In August of 2013 the plaintiff was placed in segregation because he had been engaged in an altercation with a cellmate.   When the plaintiff was placed in segregation, his property was packed and inventoried by Department of Correction employees.   When the plaintiff was released from segregation he noticed that some of his property was missing.   On September 13, 2013, the plaintiff filed a property claim with the Department of Correction Lost Property Board.   Seventeen months later, the Lost Property Board denied his claim because the plaintiff had not stated an adequate basis for the claim, and the evidence/documentation did not support the claim.   Specifically, Lost Property Board's noted that “on the property matrix transfer to Garner dated November 5, 2013, you signed for all the items you are claiming you lost, being in your possession.”

The plaintiff received the adverse decision of the Lost Property Board on March 12, 2015.   Thereafter, the plaintiff filed this direct action against the defendants.

B.

The defendants ask this court to dismiss the plaintiff's action based upon this court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Connecticut General Statutes § 18–81y requires that inmates seeking monetary relief for lost or damaged property valued at less than $3,500.00 pursue relief before the Lost Property Board.   The statute further provides that if the board denies the claim in whole or in part, the inmate may, not later than 60 days after such decision, present the claim to the Claim's Commissioner in accordance with § 4–147 of the Connecticut General Statutes.

The defendants assert that the plaintiff has not proceeded before the Claim's Commissioner and, therefore, this court is without jurisdiction.

Discussion

It became apparent to the court during the course of oral argument that the plaintiff felt that there was a one-year time frame required within which the Lost Property Board had to make a decision.   The one-year time frame is not part of Connecticut General Statutes § 18–81y.   The court requested that the defendants provide a copy of the regulations of the Department of Correction that might be applicable to the Lost Property Board.   On May 21st the defendant submitted the DOC Administrative Directive 9.6 which identified inmate administrative remedies.

Subsection 16 of Directive 9.6 provides for a Lost Property Board to “hear and determine any claim by an inmate in a correctional facility who seeks compensation not exceeding $3,500.00 for lost or damaged personal property specifically with regard to the nature and time requirement for a decision.”   Subsection E provides “the Lost Property Board shall have up to one year from the date the inmate's property claim is received to review, investigate and render a decision.   The one-year limit may be extended when justified by good cause.   Extensions to the one-year limit shall be documented on a CN 9614, Property Claim Hearing Notification.”

In this case, the Lost Property Board took more than twelve months to investigate and decide the plaintiff's claim.   The administrative regulations do not define the legal consequences for failing to make that decision in a timely manner.   There is no statutory support for an argument that the failure to act within the given time limits would lead to the honoring of the plaintiff's claim.

In this case the plaintiff could have demanded the right to file an immediate claim with the Claims Commissioner upon the expiration of the one-year time limit.   Further there is no reason to believe that upon receipt of the adverse decision of the Lost Property Board that the plaintiff could have perfected a claim with the Claims Commissioner.

Although the defendant has not fully complied with its administrative regulations, the plaintiff still had a complete remedy available to him once the denial was issued.   The plaintiff has failed to request permission from the Claim's Commissioner to either pursue this lawsuit or to have a hearing on the claims before the Claim's Commission.

In this circumstance, the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the defendants.   The defendants motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint is granted.

Cosgrove, J.

Cosgrove, Emmet L., J.