Mercer v. Cosley
| Decision Date | 16 September 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 28960.,28960. |
| Citation | 955 A.2d 550,110 Conn.App. 283 |
| Parties | Eugene P. MERCER v. Katishia COSLEY et al. |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Eugene P. Mercer, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).
William S. Fish, Jr., with whom was Paul Guggina, Hartford, for the appellees (defendants).
FLYNN, C.J., and BEACH and DUPONT, Js.
The pro se plaintiff, Eugene P. Mercer, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, Katishia Cosley, Burchell Henry, Paul Lewis and Jerry Martin and their employer, Tribune Television Company, also known as WTIC FOX-61 (collectively FOX-61), and Thomas M. O'Brien and his employer, Outlet Broadcasting, Inc., doing business as WVIT NBC-30 (collectively NBC-30). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) failed to recuse itself, sua sponte, on the basis of judicial bias and (2) rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the plaintiff's libel claim. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The record reveals the following undisputed facts and relevant procedural history. The plaintiff is an inmate serving a forty-five year sentence for felony murder. See State v. Mercer, 208 Conn. 52, 53-54, 544 A.2d 611 (1988). In July, 2004, the plaintiff filed an action against the state in the Superior Court, seeking treatment for physical symptoms related to acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and claiming discrimination.1 In that action, the plaintiff claimed, in part, that he "has [AIDS] resultant from his [human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)] infection" and that the state had discriminated against him in denying his "request for the reasonable accommodation of testosterone gel in January, 2004, [when] the ... request for testosterone gel was for the treatment of HIV-hypogonadism and erectile dysfunction. ..." He also alleged that the state "knew or should have reasonably known that the plaintiff's medical record reflects multiple instances over the course of several years concerning his decreased spontaneous erections, erectile dysfunction, decreased muscle mass and strength ..." and that the testosterone gel "restores sexual function, and muscle mass and strength and prevents bone loss." The plaintiff also filed two cases with the commission on human rights and opportunities in 2004, claiming, in part, that he suffers from "Vacuolar Myelopathy, Peripheral Neuropathy and HIV-[h]ypogonadism or erectile dysfunction," and that he "has been denied diagnosis and treatment of impotence and/or HIV-[h]ypogonadism."
On May 25, 2005, defendants NBC-30 and FOX-61 each aired a report regarding Governor M. Jodi Rell's order that the department of social services stop providing Viagra and other similar drugs to sexual offenders through the Medicaid program. They also discussed the plaintiff's complaints against the state during these reports.
In response, the plaintiff filed the present action against the defendants claiming, in relevant part,2 libel per se,3 pursuant to General Statutes § 52-237.4 The complaint alleged, inter alia: "1. The plaintiff ... is currently an inmate incarcerated at the Connecticut correctional institution— Osborne. [The] [p]laintiff files this action against the [defendants] with claims of libel per se and [other additional claims]. ...
The complaint went on to allege: "Third claim of relief—Title 52-237 of the Connecticut [G]eneral [S]tatutes—libel per se—[General Statutes §] 19a-581 ...
The defendants filed an answer and two special defenses to the plaintiff's libel claim, namely, substantial truth and the fair reporting privilege. On September 1, 2006, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the court on June 5, 2007, after it concluded that there were no material issues of fact in dispute and that both special defenses were applicable. This appeal followed. We affirm the summary judgment of the trial court.
On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial judge improperly failed to recuse himself, sua sponte, after demonstrating judicial bias in violation of canon 3(c)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.5 The plaintiff argues that the judge demonstrated bias when he became the defendants' "adviser" in drafting an order denying in part the defendants' motion to strike, which stated, in relevant part, that if the "defendants had filed a motion for summary judgment, the decision might well have been different." The plaintiff acknowledges that this issue was not presented to the trial court and, therefore, is unpreserved. He requests that we employ plain error review.6 Having reviewed the record, we are unable to find anything, "in the interests of justice"; Practice Book § 60-5; that rises to the level of plain error. Nothing in the record undermines our confidence in the court's fact-finding process or demonstrates judicial bias.
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Doody v. Doody, 99 Conn.App. 512, 523, 914 A.2d 1058 (2007). ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mercer v. Champion
...is not a neophyte in litigating against the state. See Mercer v. Blanchette, 133 Conn. App. 84, 33 A.3d 889 (2012); Mercer v. Cosley, 110 Conn. App. 283, 955 A.2d 550 (2008); Mercer v. Strange, supra, 96 Conn. App. 123; Mercer v. Rodriquez, 83 Conn. App. 251, 849 A.2d 886 (2004); Mercer v. ......
-
Skakel v. Nancy Grace, Beth Karas, Tuner Broad. Sys., Inc.
...is comprised of the torts of libel and slander: slander is oral defamation and libel is written defamation. Mercer v. Cosley, 110 Conn.App. 283, 297, 955 A.2d 550 (Conn.App.Ct.2008). With each publication of a defamatory statement by a defendant, a new cause of action arises. Cweklinsky, 26......
-
Mercer v. Champion
...is not a neophyte in litigating against the state. See Mercer v. Blanchette, 133 Conn.App. 84, 33 A.3d 889 (2012); Mercer v. Cosley, 110 Conn.App. 283, 955 A.2d 550 (2008); Mercer v. Strange, supra, 96 Conn.App. at 123, 899 A.2d 683;Mercer v. Rodriquez, 83 Conn.App. 251, 849 A.2d 886 (2004)......
-
Kleftogiannis v. Inline Plastics Corp.
...defamation and libel is written defamation." Skakel v. Grace , 5 F. Supp. 3d 199, 206 (D. Conn. 2014) (citing Mercer v. Cosley , 110 Conn. App. 283, 297, 955 A.2d 550 (2008) ). "A defamatory statement is defined as a communication that tends to ‘harm the reputation of another as to lower hi......
-
Tort Developments in 2008
...failed to prove that he or she suffered any injury as a result of the defendant's conduct. 54.Peterson, supra note 49, at 791-93. 55. 110 Conn. App. 283, 285, 955 A.2d 550 (2008). Despite the plaintiff's allegations in his complaint that the action sounded in libel per se, since neither the......