Harnage v. Lightner, 328 Conn. 248

James A. Harnage, a self-represented, indigent inmate, sued nine state employees alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs; complaint did not specify whether claims were only individual or also official-capacity.
Harnage attempted service (Mar. 5, 2014) by leaving the writ and complaint with the Connecticut Attorney General at the Attorney General’s Office in Hartford.
Defendants moved to dismiss: (1) claims against them in their individual capacities for lack of personal jurisdiction (insufficient service), and (2) claims against them in their official capacities for failure to post a recognizance bond under §§ 52-185 and 52-186.
Trial court granted dismissal of the individual-capacity claims for insufficient service under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-57(a) and ordered Harnage to post a $250 recognizance bond for official-capacity claims; Harnage could not afford the bond and appealed.
The Appellate Court affirmed dismissal of individual-capacity claims (holding service on Attorney General suffices only for official-capacity suits) but reversed as to official-capacity claims, directing a remand for a hearing on possible waiver/reduction of the recognizance bond given Harnage’s indigency and prisoner status.
The Connecticut Supreme Court granted limited certification on whether dismissal of individual-capacity claims for lack of personal jurisdiction was proper; Harnage later clarified he never intended official-capacity claims, rendering the recognizance issue moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether service on the Attorney General suffices to serve state employees in their individual capacities	Harnage: §52-64(a) and the phrase "except as otherwise provided" in §52-57(a) allow service on the Attorney General to effect individual-capacity service	Defendants: Service on Attorney General only permits service against the state or defendants in their official capacities; individual-capacity service requires personal service under §52-57(a)	Court: Affirmed Appellate Court — service on Attorney General only effects official-capacity service; individual-capacity claims dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction
Whether recognizance bond requirement (§§52-185, 52-186) as applied to an indigent inmate is unconstitutional or must be waived/reduced	Harnage: As an indigent inmate, the bond requirement denies access to courts and violates due process/equal protection; bond should be waived or nominal	Defendants/Trial Court: Bond statutes apply; plaintiff must post bond unless court orders otherwise	Appellate Court (addressed but not the Supreme Court’s certified issue): Interpreted statutes to permit waiver/reduction for indigent inmates and remanded for a waiver hearing; Connecticut Supreme Court found the issue moot after Harnage disclaimed official-capacity claims and vacated the remand

Harnage v. Lightner, 163 Conn. App. 337 (Conn. App. 2016) (Appellate Court opinion: service on Attorney General suffices only for official-capacity claims; remanded for recognizance waiver inquiry)
Harnage v. Lightner, 323 Conn. 902 (Conn. 2016) (certification order granting limited appeal on whether dismissal of individual-capacity claims for lack of personal jurisdiction was proper)