Scinto v. Stamm, No. 90268533

• Court: Superior Court of Connecticut
• Writing for the Court: McGRATH
• Citation: 605 A.2d 898,42 Conn.Supp. 144
• Parties: John J. SCINTO v. R. David STAMM et al. *
• Decision Date: 14 January 1992
• Docket Number: No. 90268533

Page 898

605 A.2d 898 42 Conn.Supp. 144 John J. SCINTO
v.
R. David STAMM et al. ^* No. 90268533. Superior Court of Connecticut,
Judicial District of Fairfield. Jan. 14, 1992.

Page 899

[42 Conn.Supp. 145] John J. Scinto, pro se.

Carolyn K. Querijero, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Richard Blumenthal, Atty. Gen., for defendants.

McGRATH, Judge.

Before the court are summary judgment motions by the plaintiff and by the defendants. The plaintiff, John J. Scinto, proceeding pro se, has brought this action against the named defendant, R. David Stamm, administrative director of the Connecticut Bar Examining Committee (CBEC), and the CBEC itself for the allegedly unconstitutional grading procedures used on the state bar examinations (exams). The following relevant undisputed facts are taken from the pleadings, exhibits and affidavits.

The plaintiff failed both the July, 1989 and February, 1990 exams, with scores of 262.79 and 260.37 respectively. The grading procedures employed by the CBEC on the exams, as attested to by the defendant Stamm, were as follows: The purpose of the bar exam is to test the minimal competency of a candidate to practice law in Connecticut. According to Stamm's affidavit: "The present system of grading the essay portion of the exam involves multiple graders per question, calibration of graders, conversion of essay grades to the Multi-State Bar Examination (MBE) scale, and a review of all applicants whose total scores are within ten points of the passing score." Stamm further [42 Conn.Supp. 146] attested that for the July, 1989 exam, three graders were assigned to each essay question and each grader initially read one third of the answer booklets for that question. For the February, 1990 exam, one of two graders initially read one half of all the answers for each question. Stamm's affidavit further indicated that "[a] candidate whose total

Page 900

score after the first reading of the essay portion falls within 10 points of the total passing score (264) has all his essay answers reread and graded by a different grader." If the two readings result in the same grade on a particular question, that grade becomes final. If the two grades given differ by one point, the average of the two becomes the final grade for that answer. If the two grades given differed by more than one point, then the essay was examined by a third reader and a consensus grade based on the three separate grades became final for a particular answer.

Prior to the initial reading of an essay answer, the graders assigned to a particular question meet to calibrate a grading scale for that question. "The graders develop this grading scale in a process during which they read and analyze approximately fifty answer booklets, considering the analysis provided by the drafter of the question, their own legal analysis, and their own knowledge of the relevant law."

Stamm attested further that "[t]his basic system of grading is presently in use in a majority of the states, and is considered state of the art." The passing score of 264 on the MBE scale was set after consultation with testing experts, and is based on the historical average passing score for Connecticut bar applicants on the MBE portion of the exam. Stamm attested that those procedures were followed in grading the plaintiff's bar examination essay answers in question.

[42 Conn.Supp. 147] In his complaint, the plaintiff seeks a hearing by the court on the essay portion of the exam, admission to the bar, a declaratory judgment that the bar exam rules and regulations are unconstitutional, and a declaratory judgment requiring the examiners to change their grading procedure.

The plaintiff alleges that he deserved to be given more points on certain essays, and that the CBEC's customs, grading procedures and rules result in gross grading errors that unconstitutionally violate due process guarantees under the federal and state constitutions.

The defendants answered the complaint and asserted sovereign immunity as a special defense. The court, Thim, J., had earlier denied the defendant's motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. The plaintiff answered the special defense, thereby closing the pleadings. See Practice Book § 379. The parties have filed memoranda of law in support of their respective motions and in opposition to their adversary's motion. This court heard the parties' arguments on the cross motions for summary judgment on November 4, and December 2, 1991.

"Summary judgment is a method of resolving litigation when pleadings, affidavits, and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Wilson v. New Haven, 213 Conn. 277, 279, 567 A.2d 829 (1989); see also Practice Book § 384. "In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court's function is not to decide issues of material fact, but rather to determine whether any such issues exist." Nolan v. Borkowski, 206 Conn. 495, 500, 538 A.2d 1031 (1988).

In support of his motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff argues that in light of his "allegations ... [42 Conn.Supp. 148] other motions, evidence, memoranda, facts and law," he is entitled to summary judgment. The defendants argue in opposition that the plaintiff has failed to submit evidence sufficient to satisfy his burden of proof.

The...