Mercer v. Blanchette
2012 Conn. App. LEXIS 15
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Mercer, an inmate, filed suit against Blanchette, clinical director of the Department of Correction.
- Blanchette served on the federal panel (Agreement Monitoring Panel) enforcing a consent judgment in Doe v. Meachum.
- The panel monitors HIV/AIDS treatment policies and may inspect facilities and interview inmates, with access to relevant records.
- At a January 27, 2010 panel meeting, Blanchette allegedly stated Mercer’s credibility issues, among other things, leading Mercer to sue for libel and related torts.
- Mercer filed claims on June 2, 2010; Blanchette moved to dismiss arguing absolute immunity for statements made in a quasi-judicial setting.
- Mercer moved to seal the file or proceed pseudonymously on July 26, 2010; the trial court denied both requests in December 2010, and Mercer appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Blanchette enjoys absolute immunity for panel statements | Mercer argues no quasi-judicial immunity for the remarks. | Blanchette contends statements were in a quasi-judicial panel, entitled to absolute immunity. | Yes; statements were within quasi-judicial panel duties and protected. |
| Whether the court properly denied sealing or pseudonymity | Mercer seeks privacy due to HIV status and safety concerns. | No strong privacy interest; HIV status already public from prior filings. | Yes; denial of motion to seal or use a pseudonym was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelley v. Bonney, 221 Conn. 549 (1992) (absolute immunity extends to quasi-judicial proceedings)
- Carrubba v. Moskowitz, 274 Conn. 533 (2005) (immunity tied to roles integral to the judicial process)
- Gallo v. Barile, 284 Conn. 459 (2007) (test for relevancy to the proceeding in determining privilege)
- Craig v. Stafford Construction, Inc., 271 Conn. 78 (2004) (quasi-judicial immunities apply to administrative investigations with discretion)
- Petyan v. Ellis, 200 Conn. 243 (1986) (absolute privilege applies to statements in certain proceedings)
- Preston v. O'Rourke, 74 Conn.App. 301 (2002) (arbitration under a CBA as quasi-judicial)