148 Conn. App. 605
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Pro se plaintiff Sylvester Traylor sued 18 defendants (12 state legislators, a judge, an appellate clerk, the New London Superior Court, the Court of Appeals, the State, and Connecticut Medical Insurance Co.) seeking damages, injunctive relief, and a declaration that Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-190a is unconstitutional as applied to indigent malpractice plaintiffs.
- § 52-190a requires a claimant to obtain a written opinion of a similar health care provider showing evidence of malpractice and to attach a copy to the complaint (with signature/name expunged).
- Traylor alleged legislators acted unethically and with conflicts of interest in opposing amendments to § 52-190a (House Bill 6487) to preserve personal/relative benefit, and alleged judicial defendants applied the statute unconstitutionally in his cases.
- The state defendants and the insurer moved to dismiss; the trial court granted dismissal in full. Traylor appealed, abandoning claims against this court and New London Superior Court.
- The appellate court considered sovereign immunity, absolute legislative/judicial immunity, qualified immunity, and personal jurisdiction/service defects in affirming dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state-law claims against legislators in official capacities are barred by sovereign or legislative immunity | Traylor argued legislators promoted an unconstitutional law and had conflicts of interest, so injunctive/declaratory relief is appropriate | Sovereign immunity and absolute legislative (speech-or-debate) immunity bar official-capacity suits over legislative acts | Dismissed: sovereign immunity and absolute legislative immunity apply; exceptions not shown |
| Whether federal claims for damages against legislators individually survive qualified immunity and service defects | Traylor sought money damages under federal law for constitutional violations | Qualified immunity protects officials unless a clearly established right was violated; Traylor also failed to serve individual defendants at their domiciles | Dismissed: qualified immunity applies; lack of proper service deprives personal jurisdiction |
| Whether claims against judicial defendants (judge, clerk) are actionable in official/individual capacities | Traylor alleged judicial acts (wrong rulings, ex parte contacts, refusal of extensions) violated rights | Absolute judicial immunity bars damages for judicial acts; qualified immunity and improper service bar individual-capacity claims | Dismissed: absolute judicial immunity for official acts; qualified immunity and lack of service for individual claims |
| Whether dismissal of claims against Connecticut Medical Insurance Co. should be reviewed | Traylor challenges dismissal including writ of mandamus | Insurer argued appellate review should be declined where appellant fails to brief the argument | Not reviewed: Traylor failed to adequately brief issue on appeal, so claim abandoned |
Key Cases Cited
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Law, 284 Conn. 701 (discusses sovereign immunity as subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Markley v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 301 Conn. 56 (describes narrow exceptions to sovereign immunity)
- Columbia Air Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Transportation, 293 Conn. 342 (explains requirements for exceptions to sovereign immunity and substantiality threshold)
- Office of Governor v. Select Committee of Inquiry, 271 Conn. 540 (explains absolute protection for legislative speech or debate)
- Lombard v. Edward J. Peters, Jr., P.C., 252 Conn. 623 (recognizes absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts)