Prigge v. Ragaglia

• Decision Date: 12 August 2003
• Docket Number: (SC 16787)
• Citation: 265 Conn. 338,828 A.2d 542
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: CHAD PRIGGE ET AL. v. KRISTINE RAGAGLIA, COMMISSIONER OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, ET AL.

265 Conn. 338

828 A.2d 542

CHAD PRIGGE ET AL. v. KRISTINE RAGAGLIA, COMMISSIONER OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, ET AL.

(SC 16787)

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued January 10, 2003.

Officially released August 12, 2003.

Sullivan, C.J., and Borden, Norcott, Palmer and Vertefeuille, Js.

Eliot D. Prescott, assistant attorney general, with whom were Gregory T. D'Auria, associate attorney general, and, on the brief, Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Susan T. Pearlman and John E. Tucker, assistant attorneys general, for the appellants (defendants).

Robert T. Rimmer, for the appellees (plaintiffs).

Opinion

BORDEN, J.

This appeal presents another chapter in the custody dispute set forth in In re Joshua S., 260 Conn. 182, 796 A.2d 1141 (2002). The dispositive issue in this appeal¹ is whether the trial court properly denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding that sovereign immunity does not bar an action for monetary damages where the plaintiffs have alleged that state officers acted in excess of their statutory authority. The defendants, Kristine Ragaglia, the commissioner of children and families, Kelly McVey, a program supervisor with the department of children and families (department), Gloria Tardif, a social worker with the department, Sherry Rautenberg, a social worker supervisor for the department, and Beverly Bosse, an investigator for the department, all of whom have been sued both in their official and individual capacities, claim that the trial court improperly denied their motion to dismiss on the ground that sovereign immunity barred the plaintiffs, Chad Prigge and Sara Prigge, from seeking monetary damages against the defendants in their official capacities. We agree with the defendants, and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The plaintiffs brought this action, seeking monetary damages against the defendants both in their official and individual capacities, and also seeking injunctive relief, alleging that the defendants had discriminated against them in certain underlying child custody proceedings. The defendants moved to dismiss the claims against them in their official capacities seeking monetary damages on the ground that the claims were barred by sovereign immunity.² The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that, in light of our decisions in Shay v. Rossi, 253 Conn. 134, 749 A.2d 1147 (2000), and Antinerella v. Rioux, 229 Conn. 479, 642 A.2d 699 (1994), sovereign immunity does not bar actions for monetary damages where the plaintiffs have alleged that state officers acted in excess of statutory authority. This appeal followed.

As we must in reviewing a motion to dismiss, we "take the facts to be those alleged in the complaint, including those facts necessarily implied from the allegations, construing them in a manner most favorable to the pleader." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Brookridge District Assn. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 259 Conn. 607, 611, 793 A.2d 215 (2002). The plaintiffs' claim arises from the defendants' alleged misconduct in handling the temporary and final placement of a child, Joshua S., with a family other than that of the plaintiffs. In their very detailed complaint, the plaintiffs alleged the following facts: Chad Prigge was the husband of Sara Prigge, and they both were members of the Truth Baptist Church (church). In the summer of 1996, the plaintiffs moved from Minnesota to East Hartford, where Chad Prigge was the assistant pastor at the church. Kelly S. and her husband, Charles S., both members of the church, were the plaintiffs' neighbors and friends. Kelly S. and Charles S. had four children, Jessica M.,³ Jennifer S., Jonah S. and Joshua S. In July, 1998, Charles S. asked Chad Prigge if the plaintiffs would agree to be named as testamentary guardians of their children. After considering the matter, the plaintiffs agreed and Kelly S. and Charles S. drew their wills accordingly, naming the plaintiffs as testamentary guardians.

The plaintiffs additionally alleged that on June 10, 1999, Kelly S. stabbed Charles S. to death in the bedroom of their home. After also stabbing Jessica M. and pouring gasoline over Jessica M. and herself, and throughout another bedroom, Kelly S. set the house on fire. Jessica M. escaped the fire and ran across the street to the plaintiffs' home, where Chad Prigge called 911. Emergency personnel rescued Joshua S. from the fire, performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation on him and revived him. Jessica M. and Joshua S. were brought to the Connecticut Children's Medical Center (medical center).⁴ On June 11, 1999, the department obtained an ex parte order for temporary custody of Joshua S. Joshua S. was transferred to Massachusetts General Hospital, where he remained until June 14, 1999, when he was transferred back to the medical center, where he stayed until he was placed temporarily with a foster family by the defendants.

The plaintiffs alleged that several actions undertaken by the defendants constituted misconduct and that the defendants' decision not to place Joshua S. with the plaintiffs was based on the plaintiffs' religion. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants altered and destroyed certain telephone records,⁵ intentionally ignored the wills of Charles S. and Kelly S. naming the plaintiffs as testamentary guardians, denied the plaintiffs visitation with Joshua S.,⁶ denied them access to a preliminary hearing on the order of temporary custody,⁷ failed to conduct a thorough investigation of the plaintiffs before making the placement decision,⁸ and made unfounded allegations against the plaintiffs during a probate proceeding⁹ on the contested wills of Charles S. and Kelly S.

The plaintiffs claimed that, in engaging in this alleged misconduct, the defendants acted in excess of the statutory authority granted to them as department officials under General Statutes §§ 45a-596, 17a-3, 17a-15 and 17a-96,¹⁰ and the authority granted to them under article first, §§ 3, 8 and 20,¹¹ and article seventh of the constitution of Connecticut,¹² and the first and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution.¹³ They alleged wilful, wanton and reckless misconduct on the part of the defendants in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3) and 1986, article first, §§ 3 and 20, and article seventh of the constitution of Connecticut, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, seeking both monetary damages¹⁴ and injunctive relief.¹⁵

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for monetary damages against the defendants in their official capacities. The trial court denied the defendants' motion, concluding that Shay v. Rossi, supra, 253 Conn. 134, and Antinerella v. Rioux, supra, 229 Conn. 479, stand for the proposition that the doctrine of sovereign immunity is not applicable to a claim for money damages when the plaintiffs have alleged that state officers acted in excess of statutory authority. The defendants claim that the trial court's ruling was improper because it is inconsistent with the well established rule that sovereign immunity bars an action seeking monetary damages, even when the plaintiffs have alleged that state officers acted in excess of statutory authority or pursuant to an unconstitutional statute. We agree with the defendants.

As to the plaintiffs' claims for money damages, this issue is controlled by our decision today in Miller v. Egan, 265 Conn. 301, 329, 828 A.2d 549 (2003), in which we held that the exception to the doctrine of sovereign immunity for actions by state officers in excess of their statutory authority applies only to actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, not to actions for money damages. When a plaintiff brings an action for money damages against the state, he must proceed through the office of the claims commissioner pursuant to chapter 53 of the General Statutes, §§ 4-141 through 4-165. Otherwise, the action must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. In the present case, the plaintiffs have not received permission from the office of the claims commissioner to bring their claims for money damages against the state. Therefore, the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars those claims.

The judgment of the trial court denying the defendants' motion to dismiss is reversed and the case is remanded to that court with direction to grant the motion and to render judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants in their official capacities seeking monetary damages.

In this opinion NORCOTT, PALMER and VERTEFEUILLE, Js., concurred.

SULLIVAN, C.J., concurring.

I agree with the result reached by the majority opinion. I write separately, however, because, in reaching that result, the majority relies exclusively on the decision in Miller v. Egan, 265 Conn. 301, 828 A.2d 549 (2003), released today. I joined Justice Zarella's concurring opinion in that case, in which he disagreed with the majority's method of statutory analysis. To the extent that the majority in this case relies on that analysis in reaching its conclusion, I disagree.

1. The defendants appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-2.

2. The defendants did not seek dismissal of either the plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief against the defendants in their official capacities, or the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants in their individual capacities. Therefore, those claims are not at issue in this appeal.

3. Charles S. was not the biological father of Jessica M.

4. Neither Jennifer S. nor Jonah S. survived the fire.

5. The plaintiffs point to two instances in which the defendants destroyed or altered telephone records. First, on June 16, 1999, Bosse informed Chad Prigge during a telephone conversation that the plaintiffs...