Anthony A. v. Comm'r of Corr.

• Decision Date: 29 August 2017
• Docket Number: SC 19565
• Citation: 166 A.3d 614,326 Conn. 668
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: ANTHONY A. v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

326 Conn. 668

166 A.3d 614

ANTHONY A.

v.COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION^*

SC 19565

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued February 23, 2017

Officially released August 29, 2017

Edward Wilson, Jr., assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were George Jepsen, attorney general, and Terrence M. O'Neill and Steven R. Strom, assistant attorneys general, for the appellant (respondent).

Richard E. Condon, Jr., senior assistant public defender, for the appellee (petitioner).

Rogers, C. J., and Palmer, Eveleigh, McDonald, Espinosa and Robinson, Js.^**

ESPINOSA, J.

The present appeal requires us to determine the appropriate test for resolving whether an inmate's prison classification implicates a protected liberty interest. The respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the judgment of the habeas court, which dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner, Anthony A., for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.¹ Anthony A . v. Commissioner of Correction , 159 Conn.App. 226, 242, 122 A.3d 730 (2015). The respondent claims that, contrary to the conclusion of the Appellate Court, the habeas court properly dismissed the petition on the basis that the petitioner failed to allege a protected liberty interest. The petitioner responds that the allegations in the petition, which claim that he was incorrectly classified as a sex offender and that he suffered negative consequences as a result of that erroneous classification, sufficiently alleged a cognizable liberty interest to confer jurisdiction on the court. We agree with the petitioner and affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.

Because this appeal arises from the habeas court's ruling dismissing the petitionon the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction, we take the facts to be those alleged in the petition, including those facts necessarily implied from the allegations, construing them in favor of the petitioner for purposes of deciding whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction.² See Dorry v. Garden , 313 Conn. 516, 521, 98 A.3d 55 (2014). The allegations in the petition and attachments thereto establish that the petitioner is an inmate who was convicted after pleading guilty to unlawful restraint in the first degree, failure to appear and violation of probation. Initially, the victim, the petitioner's wife, also told the police that the petitioner had sexually assaulted her, but she subsequently recanted that statement, and the state entered a nolle prosequi as to the charge of sexual assault in a spousal relationship.

Upon the petitioner's incarceration, he was classified pursuant to an administrative directive of the Department of Correction (department), which provides in relevant part: "Each inmate under the custody of the Commissioner of Correction shall be classified to the most appropriate assignment for security and treatment needs to promote effective population management and preparation for release from confinement and supervision...." Department of Correction, Administrative Directive 9.2 (1) (effective July 1, 2006) (Administrative Directive 9.2). An inmate's classification depends on his risks and needs scores, each of which is evaluated pursuant to specific factors. Administrative Directive 9.2 (8) (A) and (B).³ Those scores and the resulting classification determine the inmate's "appropriate confinement location, treatment, programs and employment assignment whether in a facility or the community." Administrative Directive 9.2 (3) (A).

The department classified the petitioner as a sex offender, despite the fact that he had not been convicted of a sex offense and had no prior history as a sex offender.⁴ As a consequence of the erroneous classification, the petitioner was offered a choice. He could participate in "sex treatment" that was recommended by his offender accountability plan or risk forfeiture of supervised community release, parole and the opportunity to earn risk reduction earned credit (good time credits). He refused to participate in treatment.

The petitioner subsequently filed this petition, claiming that he had been classified as a sex offender without being provided procedural due process. At the hearing on the petition, the court first heard argument as to whether it had jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that he had alleged sufficient facts to establish a cognizable liberty interest. Specifically, he argued that the classification had been predicated on erroneous facts, stigmatized him, and that he had been materially burdened by the classification.

As to those material burdens, the petitioner alleged that he suffered several negative consequences as a result of the classification. He alleged a direct causal link between the classification and his increased security status. He alleged a contingent relationship between the classification, the recommended treatment plan and his eligibility for good time credits, parole and community release. That is, he claimed that the department had notified him that if he did not participate in the recommended sex offender treatment, he risked forfeiting all three of those benefits. That claim finds support in the department's offender accountability plan that was attached to the petition and provides: "Failure to comply with [the plan's] recommendations ... shall negatively impact your earning of [good time credits] ... and/or chances of [department] supervised community release and/or parole." (Emphasis added.) Finally, although the petitioner did not allege in the petition that he actually suffered harassment as a result of the classification, he did claim in an inmate administrative remedy form that he had submitted to the department that the sex offender classification had the "potential" to prejudice prison staff and other inmates against him.⁵ The habeas court dismissed the petition, concluding that because the petitioner failed to allege any protected liberty interest, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Upon the habeas court's grant of certification to appeal, the petitioner appealed from the judgment of dismissal to the Appellate Court.

The Appellate Court first considered whether the petition had been rendered moot by the petitioner's release from prison prior to oral argument. Anthony A. v. Commissioner of Correction , supra, 159 Conn.App. at 232–33, 122 A.3d 730. The court observed that the petitioner had informed the court that, after his release, he had been arrested in connection with new charges and was being detained at New Haven Correctional Center. Id., at 232, 122 A.3d 730. Because of the petitioner's new arrest, the Appellate Court reasoned that there was "a reasonable possibility that, should he return to prison, he will again be classified as being in need of sex offender treatment because the department assigned him a sex offender treatment need score with a recommended sex offender treatment referral during his previous incarceration." Id., at 234, 122 A.3d 730. The court concluded, therefore, that the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine applied.⁶ Id., at 233, 122 A.3d 730.

Turning to the merits of the petitioner's claim, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the habeas court on the basis of its conclusion that the petitioner's allegations established a protected liberty interest under the stigma plus test applied by the federal courts, which it found to be appropriate under the facts of the present case. Id., at 238–40, 122 A.3d 730. The court concluded that the petitioner's allegation that the department had falsely labeled him a sex offender established stigma, and that the petitioner's allegation that he had been coerced to participate in sex offender treatment on the basis of that erroneous classification established the "plus" element of the test. Id., at 240–41, 122 A.3d 730. This certified appeal followed.

"In order to state a claim for a denial of procedural due process ... a prisoner must allege that he possessed a protected liberty interest, and was not afforded the requisite process before being deprived of that liberty interest.... A petitioner has no right to due process ... unless a liberty interest has been deprived ...." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Coleman v. Commissioner of Correction , 111 Conn.App. 138, 141, 958 A.2d 790 (2008), cert. denied, 290 Conn. 905, 962 A.2d 793 (2009). Our first inquiry, therefore, is whether the petitioner has alleged a protected liberty interest. That question implicates the subject matter jurisdiction of the habeas court. See Baker v. Commissioner of Correction , 281 Conn. 241, 261–62, 914 A.2d 1034 (2007) (holding that habeas court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because inmate did not have cognizable liberty interest in parole eligibility status).

The parties disagree as to the applicable test to determine whether the petitioner's allegations are sufficient to establish that the respondent's actions implicated a protected liberty interest. The respondent, relying on this court's decision in Wheway v. Warden , 215 Conn. 418, 431, 576 A.2d 494 (1990), argues that because he enjoys full discretion in assigning classification and needs scores to inmates, such classifications cannot, as a matter of law, give rise to a protected liberty interest. The petitioner contends that because the classification stigmatized him and because he suffered negative consequences, he has satisfied his burden of establishing a protected liberty interest under the stigma plus test. We agree with the petitioner that the stigma plus test applies under the circumstances of the case, and we conclude that his allegations sufficiently allege a protected liberty interest.

In Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472, 477–84, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995), the United States Supreme Court reviewed its earlier decisions that had considered under what circumstances allegations by inmates were sufficient to...