Connelly v. Commissioner of Correction
2014 WL 1561221
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- William Connelly, an incarcerated plaintiff, sought psychiatric/psychological and military records from the Commissioner and Department of Correction and filed a FOIA complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission (the commission).
- The commission found that the requested records were not in Connelly’s Osborn Correctional Institution file and mailed its final decision to Connelly on February 14, 2012.
- Connelly filed an administrative appeal in Superior Court on March 26, 2012 (timely), and requested a fee waiver; the court granted waiver of filing/entry fees but did not waive marshal or transcript fees.
- Service on the commission occurred via regular mail and was received by the commission on April 4, 2012 (50 days after mailing of the decision); Connelly produced no proof he deposited the appeal in the mail within the 45-day statutory period.
- The Superior Court concluded Connelly failed to comply with the service requirements of General Statutes § 4-183(c), found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and dismissed the appeal; Connelly appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service of the appeal on the agency had to be completed within 45 days after mailing of the agency’s final decision | Connelly argued countdown should start on date he received the notice (due to alleged prison delivery delay) and that the court should apply the prison mailbox rule (filing deemed made when inmate hands to prison staff) | Defendants argued the 45-day clock starts on mailing and service must be proved to have been deposited within that period; no proof of timely mailing here | Held: The 45-day period begins on mailing; Connelly failed to prove deposit within 45 days; appeal dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction |
| Whether the federal prison mailbox rule (Houston v. Lack) applies to § 4-183(c) appeals | Connelly urged adoption of the federal mailbox rule so his inmate deposit would count as timely | Defendants maintained Connecticut precedent does not adopt that rule for administrative appeals under § 4-183(c) | Held: Court declined to adopt the federal rule and followed Hastings precedent refusing to apply it |
| Whether the court should equitably toll or otherwise excuse noncompliance due to prison mail delays | Connelly urged fairness and alleged delay by prison officials justified different start date or tolling | Defendants relied on statutory text and case law requiring strict compliance with § 4-183(c) | Held: No tolling; statutory text controls and strict compliance required |
| Whether Connelly may raise a state constitutional claim on appeal (article first, § 10) that the mailbox rule should apply | Connelly invoked state constitutional right to due course of law | Defendants noted claim was not raised in Superior Court and thus unpreserved | Held: Claim unpreserved; appellate court declined to review it |
Key Cases Cited
- Glastonbury Volunteer Ambulance Assn., Inc. v. Freedom of Information Commission, 227 Conn. 848 (Conn. 1993) (§ 4-183(c) requires both filing and service within 45 days; failure is jurisdictional)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (Conn. 1999) (failure to make proper service under § 4-183(c) is jurisdictional)
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1988) (federal prison mailbox rule: inmate filing deemed filed when delivered to prison authorities)
- Hastings v. Commissioner of Correction, 82 Conn. App. 600 (Conn. App. 2004) (Connecticut appellate court declined to adopt federal prison mailbox rule for administrative appeals)
- Godaire v. Freedom of Information Commission, 141 Conn. App. 716 (Conn. App. 2013) (affirming dismissal where appellant failed to show compliance with § 4-183(c))