175 Conn. App. 831
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Andres R. Sosa, a self-represented incarcerated plaintiff, sued DOC officials (Semple, Chapdelaine, Quiros) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking money damages and declaratory/injunctive relief for revocation of contact-visitation privileges.
- The disciplinary sanction at issue was an automatic two-year loss of contact visits under DOC Administrative Directive § 10.6 following a class A disciplinary report for masturbating in his cell.
- Sosa alleged deprivation of contact visits over many years, lack of due process, and an unconstitutional custom/policy denying visitation rights.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; the trial court: (1) dismissed all money-damages claims (official and individual capacities) on sovereign immunity and/or qualified immunity grounds; (2) dismissed all individual-capacity declaratory/injunctive claims for insufficient service of process; and (3) denied dismissal of prospective declaratory and injunctive relief against the defendants in their official capacities.
- Sosa appealed the dismissals of (a) monetary claims against defendants in their official capacities and (b) all claims against defendants in their individual capacities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review dismissal of money damages against defendants in their official capacities | Sosa challenged dismissal of money-damages claims against defendants in official capacities | Defendants and trial court observed that declaratory/injunctive official-capacity claims remained pending, so no final judgment as to official-capacity claims | Appeal as to official-capacity money damages dismissed for lack of a final judgment (no appellate jurisdiction) |
| Whether the individual-capacity claims are barred by qualified immunity | Sosa argued defendants violated clearly established constitutional rights to contact visits | Defendants asserted qualified immunity because inmates have no protected liberty interest in contact visitation (it's a privilege) | Court affirmed qualified immunity ruling; Sosa’s challenge inadequately briefed so court declined to review the merits |
| Whether service was sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over individual-capacity claims | Sosa contended service was proper and individual-capacity claims should proceed | Defendants pointed out service was made at the Office of the Attorney General (per §52-64), which effectuates only official-capacity service, not personal service at a usual place of abode (§52-57) | Court affirmed dismissal of all individual-capacity claims for lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service (service at AG’s office suffices only for official capacity) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Courchesne, 296 Conn. 622 (de novo review of motion to dismiss jurisdictional issues)
- State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27 (statutory requirement that appeals be from final judgments)
- Edelman v. Page, 123 Conn. App. 233 (service at Attorney General’s office effects official-capacity service only)
- Matthews v. SBA, Inc., 149 Conn. App. 513 (personal jurisdiction requires proper service under statutory rules)
- State v. Buhl, 321 Conn. 688 (issues inadequately briefed are not reviewed)