202 Conn.App. 607
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background:
- Lewis (incarcerated) filed an FOIA complaint against the DOC; the FOI Commission mailed its final decision on May 25, 2018.
- Lewis applied for a fee waiver on June 14, 2018; the waiver was granted June 28, 2018, tolling the appeal deadline until the waiver decision and yielding a July filing window (parties treated July 24, 2018 as the deadline).
- Lewis served the Commission by certified mail on July 24, 2018 (service conceded timely), and mailed his appeal papers to the Superior Court the same day by regular mail.
- The court returned Lewis’s papers (clerk initially refused to file, stating a state marshal was required); Lewis resubmitted proof of mail (Green Card) and the appeal was not accepted by the clerk until October 10, 2018.
- The Commission moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under § 4-183(c) (45‑day requirement to serve and file appeals); the trial court dismissed for untimely filing and denied Lewis’s subpoena application; Lewis appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed: Lewis’s filing was not received within the statutory period, and clerk misinformation did not cure the jurisdictional defect.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lewis’s administrative appeal was filed within the 45‑day period under § 4‑183(c) | Lewis: mailed appeal to court July 24, 2018, so filing was timely | Commission: filing was not received by clerk until Oct. 10, 2018, so untimely | Held: Filing was not received within 45 days; appeal untimely; dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction affirmed |
| Whether clerk misinformation/misconduct excused or tolled the filing deadline | Lewis: clerk gave incorrect filing instructions, refused to file his papers, so deadline should be excused/saved | Commission: statutory 45‑day limit is jurisdictional and cannot be waived; clerk error doesn’t alter filing deadline | Held: Misinformation did not save the appeal; jurisdictional deadline cannot be equitably tolled or waived |
| Whether denial of subpoenas to compel clerk/marshal testimony was improper | Lewis: subpoenas needed to show clerk/marshal conduct caused untimeliness | Commission: no need — jurisdictional defect clear | Held: Court did not reach merits because dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was dispositive; subpoenas denial need not be addressed further |
Key Cases Cited
- Glastonbury Volunteer Ambulance Assn., Inc. v. Freedom of Information Commission, 227 Conn. 848 (1993) (failure to meet § 4-183(c) service/filing deadline is a jurisdictional defect)
- Godaire v. Freedom of Information Commission, 141 Conn. App. 716 (2013) (misinformation from court clerk does not save a late administrative appeal because the statutory deadline is jurisdictional)
- Godbout v. Attanasio, 199 Conn. App. 88 (2020) (standard of review for motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is plenary)
- Pine v. Dept. of Public Health, 100 Conn. App. 175 (2007) (courts exercising limited statutory jurisdiction must act within the precise circumstances prescribed by statute)