Crocker v. Commissioner of Correction
174 A.3d 860
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Shawn Crocker, serving a murder sentence, was involved in a July 29, 2015 inmate altercation at MacDougall-Walker CI during which he allegedly used a sharpened toothbrush.
- He received disciplinary tickets (fighting; possession of contraband), was given restrictive housing status, transferred to Northern CI, and placed in administrative segregation.
- A restrictive status hearing (Aug. 18, 2015) was held; the hearing officer upheld his security classification. Petitioner alleges the placement was not authorized by Administrative Directive 9.2 and that grievance procedures violated due process.
- Petitioner filed a habeas petition (Nov. 24, 2015) seeking release from administrative segregation; the habeas court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over classification/housing challenges.
- The habeas court granted certification to appeal. While the appeal was pending, Crocker was removed from administrative segregation and transferred to a Massachusetts facility.
- The Connecticut Appellate Court ordered briefing on mootness; the petitioner conceded he is no longer in CT segregation and requested release from segregation as sole relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner’s challenge to placement in administrative segregation is justiciable on appeal | Crocker: placement violated Administrative Directive 9.2 and procedural due process; seeks release from administrative segregation | Commissioner: appeal presents no live controversy because petitioner is no longer in segregation or incarcerated in CT; court lacks practical relief to grant | Appeal is moot; dismissed because petitioner is not in CT segregation and sole relief requested (release from segregation) cannot be provided |
| Whether speculative future injury (possible return to CT and re-segregation) overcomes mootness | Crocker: may return to CT and could be placed again in segregation; absence of safeguards makes relief still relevant | Commissioner: speculative future placement is insufficient to create a live controversy | Speculative future injury does not cure mootness; possibility is too abstract to save the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- RAL Management, Inc. v. Valley View Associates, 278 Conn. 672 (discusses mootness and requirement of practical relief)
- Paulino v. Commissioner of Correction, 155 Conn. App. 154 (addresses insufficiency of speculative future injury to avoid mootness)