Mangiafico v. Town of Farmington
| Citation | 331 Conn. 404,204 A.3d 1138 |
| Decision Date | 16 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | SC 19993 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Parties | Enrico MANGIAFICO v. TOWN OF FARMINGTON et al. |
331 Conn. 404
204 A.3d 1138
Enrico MANGIAFICO
v.
TOWN OF FARMINGTON et al.
SC 19993
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Argued October 9, 2018
Officially released April 16, 2019
Jon L. Schoenhorn, Hartford, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Kenneth R. Slater, Jr., with whom was Daniel J. Krisch, Hartford, for the appellees (defendants).
Robinson, C.J., and Palmer, McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js.
ECKER, J.
The principal issue in this certified appeal is whether a claim brought in state court alleging a deprivation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 19831 may be dismissed for failure to exhaust state administrative remedies. The plaintiff, Enrico Mangiafico, is a homeowner who was the subject of a series of enforcement actions under a municipal blight ordinance in the town of Farmington.2 In 2013, the plaintiff commenced this state court action alleging, in
relevant part, that the defendants' designation of his property as blighted, their assessment of daily punitive fines, and their imposition of municipal blight liens constituted an unconstitutional taking of his property in violation of the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution and § 1983. The defendants successfully moved in the trial court to dismiss the plaintiff's § 1983 claims for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because he had not filed an appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 7-152c(g).3 The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. See Mangiafico v. Farmington , 173 Conn. App. 158, 177, 163 A.3d 689 (2017).
On appeal, the plaintiff contends that he was not required to exhaust his state administrative remedies. The defendants respond that the plaintiff's § 1983 claims properly were dismissed, under settled Connecticut precedent, for failure to exhaust state administrative remedies. Alternatively, the defendants contend that dismissal was required under the ripeness doctrine articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank , 473 U.S. 172, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985) ( Williamson County ), because there was no final decision in this case due to the plaintiff's failure to appeal his assessments pursuant to § 7-152c(g).
Our disposition is controlled largely by Patsy v. Board of Regents , 457 U.S. 496, 501, 102 S.Ct. 2557, 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982), in which the United States Supreme Court held in unequivocal terms that "exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to an action under § 1983...." We repeatedly have acknowledged that the Patsy doctrine applies in § 1983 cases litigated in our state courts. See Laurel Park, Inc. v. Pac , 194 Conn. 677, 690, 485 A.2d 1272 (1984) ;
Fetterman v. University of Connecticut , 192 Conn. 539, 549, 473 A.2d 1176 (1984). We have deviated from Patsy in one respect, by creating an exception to its applicability in actions for injunctive relief under § 1983. See Pet v. Dept. of Health Services , 207 Conn. 346, 369, 542 A.2d 672 (1988) (holding that "no form of injunctive relief, under § 1983 or otherwise, is justified as an exception to the [administrative] exhaustion requirement"); Laurel Park, Inc. v. Pac , supra, at 691, 485 A.2d 1272 (holding that "none of the concerns expressed in Patsy " warrant an "exception to the exhaustion doctrine" in cases for injunctive relief). Following oral argument in the present case, this court sua sponte ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing the continued viability of the injunctive relief exception in light of Patsy and its progeny and whether we should "overrule Pet v. Department of Health Services in this case?"
We conclude, in light of Patsy and its progeny, that a plaintiff is not required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing a § 1983 claim in state court, regardless of the type of relief sought. We therefore overrule our holdings in Pet and Laurel Park, Inc. , that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the filing of a § 1983 action for injunctive relief. We decline to address
the defendants' unpreserved Williamson County defense and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the Appellate Court.
I
It will be useful at the outset to review the statutory and regulatory scheme governing blight designations and citations in the town of Farmington. General Statutes § 7-148(c)(7)(H)(xv) provides municipalities with the power to "[m]ake and enforce regulations for the prevention and remediation of housing blight ... provided such regulations define housing blight and require such municipality to give written notice of any
violation to the owner and occupant of the property and provide a reasonable opportunity for the owner and occupant to remediate the blighted conditions prior to any enforcement action being taken ...." The statute further provides municipalities with the authority to "prescribe civil penalties for the violation of such regulations of not less than ten or more than one hundred dollars for each day that a violation continues and, if such civil penalties are prescribed, such municipality shall adopt a citation hearing procedure in accordance with section 7-152c...." General Statutes § 7-148(c)(7)(H)(xv).
Pursuant to § 7-148(c)(7)(H)(xv), the town adopted regulations governing "blighted premises," which are defined, in relevant part, as "[a]ny vacant building or structure" that (A) "pose[s] a serious threat to the health and safety of persons in the [t]own," (B) "is not being maintained and contributes to housing decay," (C) "[is a location at which] [i]llegal activities are conducted ... as documented in [p]olice [d]epartment records," (D) "is a fire hazard as determined by the [f]ire [m]arshall or as documented in [f]ire [d]epartment records," or (E) "is a factor creating a substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of other premises within the surrounding area as documented by neighborhood complaints, police reports or the cancellation of insurance on proximate properties." Farmington Town Code § 88-2(A) through (E) (2003) (town code). The regulations provide that "[n]o owner of real property, taxable or tax-exempt, within the [t]own of Farmington shall cause or allow blighted premises to be created, nor shall any owner allow the continued existence of blighted premises." Id., § 88-3. Under the regulations, the town manager must "complete a list of blighted properties," which is then "approve[d], disapprove[d], or modif[ied]" by the town council. Id., § 88-4(B) and (C). After the list of blighted properties has
been approved by the town council, "the [t]own [m]anager, or his designee, shall undertake regular inspections for the purpose of documenting continuous blight and shall issue a citation and impose a penalty of not more than $ 100 for each day that the building or structure" continues to be blighted. Id., § 88-5(A). Each day that the building or structure is deemed to be blighted constitutes "a separate offense." Id.
Section 7-152c(a) authorizes municipalities to "establish by ordinance a citation hearing procedure" to enforce any "assessments and judgments" imposed in the exercise of its municipal powers. Under the citation hearing procedure, the municipality must, "within twelve months from the expiration of the final period for the uncontested payment of fines, penalties, costs or fees ... send notice to the person cited," informing them "(1) [o]f the allegations against him and the amount of the fines, penalties, costs or fees due; (2) that he may contest his liability before a citation hearing officer by delivering in person or by mail written notice within ten days of
the date thereof; (3) that if he does not demand such a hearing, an assessment and judgment shall be entered against him; and (4) that such judgment may issue without further notice." General Statutes § 7-152c(c). The municipality must provide any person requesting a citation hearing with "written notice of the date, time and place for the hearing" and an opportunity to "present evidence in his behalf." General Statutes § 7-152c(e). At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer must "announce his decision ...." General Statutes § 7-152c(e). If the hearing officer "determines that the person is not liable" for the violation, he must dismiss the matter. General Statutes § 7-152c(e). If, however, the hearing officer "determines that the person is liable for the violation," he must "enter and assess the fines, penalties, costs or fees against such person as provided by the applicable ordinances
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clements v. Aramark Corp.
...neither "an inexorable command [nor] an absolute impediment to change"; (internal quotation marks omitted) Mangiafico v. Farmington , 331 Conn. 404, 425 n.8, 204 A.3d 1138 (2019) ; and we are not persuaded that it should be controlling here. For similar reasons—in particular, because we rea......
-
Gonzalez v. Comm'r of Corr.
...any time during the proceedings, including for the first time on appeal." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mangiafico v. Farmington , 331 Conn. 404, 430, 204 A.3d 1138 (2019). "Subject matter jurisdiction involves the authority of the court to adjudicate the type of controversy presented......
-
Donald v. Comm'r of Corr.
...16–17, 276 A.3d 935 (2022) (declining to review unpreserved claim of alternative ground to affirm judgment); Mangiafico v. Farmington , 331 Conn. 404, 429, 204 A.3d 1138 (2019) (applying to alternative ground for affirmance rule that appellate court will not consider claim, constitutional o......
-
Pringle v. Pattis
...agree with the concurrence that our Supreme Court has not expressly adopted the exoneration rule. See, e.g., Mangiafico v. Farmington , 331 Conn. 404, 421, 204 A.3d 1138 (2019) (quoting Heck for proposition that " ‘§ 1983 contains no exhaustion requirement beyond what Congress has provided’......