Snyder v. Commissioner of Correction

• Decision Date: 27 January 2020
• Docket Number: TSRCV184009640S
• Court: Connecticut Superior Court
• Parties: Noah Snyder (Inmate #282683) v. Commissioner of Correction

Noah Snyder (Inmate #282683) v. Commissioner of Correction

No. TSRCV184009640S

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Tolland, Rockville, Geographic Area 19

January 27, 2020

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Seeley, Hope C., J.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Seeley, J.

The self-represented petitioner, NOAH SNYDER, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus on or about July 27, 2018 in which he claimed that his constitutional rights are being violated by the Department of Correction’s failure to provide him with three adequate meals per day and in administering medical tests without his informed consent in retaliation for having filed a civil action. Specifically, he requested that he receive a high calorie/protein diet until he reaches the weight of 218 pounds and that the court issue a restraining order against Dr. Carson Wright and any other DOC employees who are identified as wrongdoers.

The petitioner filed an amended petition on September 4, 2018. In his amended petition, the petitioner provides additional factual allegations in support of his claim that he is being denied adequate nutrition and that he is being purposefully exposed to life-threatening allergens in retaliation for filing civil complaints against prison officials. He additionally alleges that he was issued a vexatious Disciplinary Report to deprive him of risk reduction earned credit ("RREC") and had him placed in punitive segregation. The petitioner requests disciplinary action against DOC officials, corrective action, temporary release from DOC until the complained of issues are addressed restoration of all forfeited RREC, and any other relief which the court deems fair and just.

On July 30, 2019, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss. The respondent argues that the case is moot because the petitioner is no longer incarcerated within the Department of Correction. The petitioner discharged to Parole Supervision on or about July 12, 2019. On September 27, 2019, the court heard oral argument in connection with the respondent’s motion to dismiss. The respondent claims that because the petitioner is no longer incarcerated, he is not being served food, and therefore, his claim is moot. The petitioner argues that the case is not moot because given the structure of parole, it is "almost certain" he will return to DOC and face the same issues relating to his diet. He further argues that RREC was taken away from him in retaliation for him using the grievance process relating to his request to have his previously approved diet reinstated. RREC would impact the end date of his sentence regardless of whether or not he remains incarcerated, and therefore, the petitioner argues that claim is not moot. The respondent counters that the petitioner has received all RREC for which he is entitled.

"Mootness is a question of justiciability that must be determined as a threshold matter because it implicates [this] court’s subject matter jurisdiction ... Indeed, we note that courts are called upon to determine existing controversies, and thus may not be used as a vehicle to obtain advisory judicial opinions on points of law ... [A]n actual controversy must exist not only at the time the appeal is taken, but also throughout the pendency of the appeal ... When, during the pendency of an appeal, events have occurred that preclude an appellate court from granting any practical relief through its disposition of the merits, a case has become moot ... This court cannot provide any practical relief after the petitioner has served his sentence in its entirety ... Unless the petitioner’s claim falls under an exception to the mootness doctrine, we must dismiss his appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction." (Internal citations omitted.) (Internal quotation marks omitted). Patterson v. Commissioner of Correction, 112 Conn.App. 826, 829-30, 964 A.2d 1234 (2009).

In the present case, as to the petitioner’s complaint regarding his diet, the petitioner has been released from imprisonment to special parole and no longer is incarcerated in a correctional institution. This court cannot provide any practical relief now that he is released and DOC is no longer responsible for his diet. Unless the petitioner’s claim falls under an exception to the mootness doctrine, this court must dismiss this claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The court interprets the...