Harnage v. Commissioner of Correction
2013 Conn. App. LEXIS 94
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Hamage, self-represented plaintiff, filed a seven-count complaint March 9, 2010 seeking monetary and injunctive relief against multiple defendants.
- Counts 1–2 allege unconstitutional blanket strip searches of Hamage as an inmate at Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center in June 2008, including privacy concerns.
- Counts 3–4 allege improper meal timing and inadequate time to eat; counts 6–7 concern retaliation and unlawful strip search following a disciplinary finding related to a ‘stinger.’
- On May 6, 2011, Hamage moved for partial summary judgment; defendants filed a cross motion on October 3, 2011.
- In a January 23, 2012 memorandum, the trial court denied Hamage’s MSJ and granted in part the defendants’ cross MSJ as to monetary damages, while injunctive relief and several counts remained unresolved.
- The court dismissed the appeal for lack of a final judgment since remaining claims and injunctive relief were still pending and no final disposition of all claims against any party occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the challenged order a final judgment? | Hamage argues the decision resolved counts 1–2 and disposed of all monetary claims, constituting a final judgment. | The order was interlocutory, disposing of only part of the claims and not final under governing rules. | No final judgment; appellate jurisdiction not triggered. |
| Whether sovereign immunity defeats the action for monetary damages | Hamage contends sovereign immunity did not bar his monetary claims and demands consideration of 4-165 and related arguments. | Court properly applied sovereign immunity to monetary damages claims. | Issues remain unresolved; court’s partial ruling did not constitute final disposition. |
| Whether the remaining injunctive and other counts should have been addressed or rendered final | The court should have addressed all counts, or the judgment should be final insofar as injunctive relief is concerned. | Claims not addressed remained pending and thus not final. | Not final; appeal dismissed for lack of final judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Singhaviroj v. Board of Education, 124 Conn. App. 228 (2010) (interlocutory appeals criteria; final judgment requirements)
- State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27 (1983) (circumstances permitting appeal of otherwise interlocutory orders)
- Psaki v. Karlton, 97 Conn. App. 64 (2006) (partial judgments rule; exceptions for final disposition or specific procedural triggers)