163 Conn.App. 337
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- James A. Harnage, an incarcerated, indigent plaintiff, sued nine state employees alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs (claims against defendants in individual and official capacities).
- Trial court granted indigency fee waivers but the plaintiff served process by leaving it with the Attorney General’s office rather than personally or at defendants’ abodes.
- Defendants moved to dismiss: (1) individual-capacity claims for insufficient service of process; (2) official-capacity claims for failure to post a $250 recognizance bond under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 52-185 and 52-186.
- Trial court dismissed individual-capacity claims for lack of personal jurisdiction and ordered plaintiff to post the recognizance bond or face dismissal; plaintiff could not afford the bond and appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed dismissal of individual-capacity claims (service at AG’s office insufficient for individual-capacity service) but reversed as to official-capacity dismissal and remanded for a hearing on whether to waive or reduce the bond, applying an interpretive gloss to avoid constitutional problems.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service at the Attorney General’s office constitutes valid service on state employees sued in their individual capacities | Harnage: § 52-64(a) and the “except as otherwise provided” language in § 52-57(a) permit service on the AG for individual-capacity suits | Defendants: § 52-64(a) applies only to official-capacity suits; § 52-57(a) requires personal or abode service for individual-capacity claims | Court: Rejected plaintiff; service on AG suffices only for official-capacity claims; individual-capacity service required under § 52-57(a) |
| Whether recognizance bond statutes (§§ 52-185, 52-186) applied to indigent incarcerated plaintiff and whether they unconstitutionally deny access to courts | Harnage: Bond requirement does not apply or is unconstitutional as-applied (violates due process/equal protection and denies access to courts) | Defendants: Statutes apply; plaintiff can avoid posting by having a financially responsible person enter recognizance; statutes are presumptively constitutional | Court: Statutes apply, but to avoid unconstitutional total denial of access, court construes §§ 52-185 and 52-186 to permit trial courts to waive or substantially reduce bond for indigent inmates on proper showing; remanded for waiver hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Traylor v. Gerratana, 148 Conn. App. 605 (Conn. App. 2014) (service on Attorney General suffices only for official-capacity claims)
- Edelman v. Page, 123 Conn. App. 233 (Conn. App. 2010) (same rule on service and individual-capacity defendants)
- Reitzer v. Board of Trustees of State Colleges, 2 Conn. App. 196 (Conn. App. 1984) (service on AG proper when defendants sued only in official capacity)
- Bogle-Assegai v. Connecticut, 470 F.3d 498 (2d Cir. 2006) (§ 52-64(a) construed to reach official-capacity suits only)
- Bissing v. Turkington, 113 Conn. 737 (Conn. 1931) (recognizance bond required only where statutory authority permits taxation of costs)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974) (prisoners have fundamental right of access to courts to challenge conditions of confinement)
- Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (U.S. 1971) (conditioning access to judicial relief on payment can violate due process when a fundamental interest is at stake)
- State v. Indrisano, 228 Conn. 795 (Conn. 1994) (court may adopt interpretive gloss to preserve statute’s constitutionality)