Stanley v. Barone
Decision Date | 25 January 2022 |
Docket Number | AC 43889 |
Citation | 269 A.3d 946,210 Conn.App. 239 |
Parties | Steven K. STANLEY v. Kristine BARONE et al. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Steven K. Stanley, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff).
James W. Donohue, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was William Tong, attorney general, for the appellees (defendants).
The self-represented plaintiff, Steven K. Stanley, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants,1 employees of the Department of Correction (department), on the basis of statutory and qualified immunity.
The plaintiff claims that the court improperly dismissed his complaint because the immunities relied on by the court do not bar his claims brought against the defendants in their individual capacities. We affirm the judgment of the court.
The following factual, legal, and procedural history is relevant to our analysis. In 2013, the plaintiff was convicted of, inter alia, 100 counts of criminal violation of a protective order, and the court sentenced him to 18 years of imprisonment with 12 years of special parole. See State v. Stanley , 161 Conn. App. 10, 14, 125 A.3d 1078 (2015), cert. denied, 320 Conn. 918, 131 A.3d 1154 (2016). While incarcerated, the plaintiff initiated several actions in federal court, and he owes portions of the filing fees for those actions to the federal court.
(Citations omitted.) Bruce v. Samuels , 577 U.S. 82, 84, 136 S. Ct. 627, 193 L. Ed. 2d 496 (2016). Under title 28 of the United States Code, § 1915 (b) (2), "[t]he agency having custody of the prisoner shall forward payments from the prisoner's account to the clerk of the court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 until the filing fees are paid."
In Bruce v. Samuels , supra, 577 U.S. at 86–87, 136 S.Ct. 627, a federal inmate who owed filing fees for multiple cases claimed that the monthly installments for his most recent case would not become due until his prior obligations were satisfied. The United States Supreme Court rejected his claim and held "that § 1915 (b) (2) calls for simultaneous, not sequential, recoupment of multiple filing fees." Id., at 87, 136 S. Ct. 627.
In the present case, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendants in their individual capacities by way of a one page complaint, which is difficult to understand. The complaint, titled "Civil Tort Claims Act," provides: "I Steven K. Stanley ... filed a (1983) civil suit in the federal court2 and was granted to proceed in a PLRA account to deduct (only) 20 percent from my account on all money being on this account to each time money is put on this account the federal court granted and stated (only) 20 percent will be deducted and (only) one case at a time on April of 2019, [the department] has overcharged this account to take ... 40 percent from my account I have [repeatedly] filed to Macdougal, inmate account and even filed grievances to this fact [the department] inmate account cites a Connecticut case law trying to overrule the federal rules of practice and at no time did I give an[y] permission to take any more than the ... 20 percent I was granted to file on a [§] 1983 PLRA account [the department] cites Bruce v. Samuels , [supra, 577 U.S. 82, 136 S.Ct. 627 ] case law that does not [apply] to this case being filed prior to this case law [the department repeatedly] denied to return this extra money there this civil tort claims act is being generated in a claim to relief Connecticut General Statutes § 52-91." (Emphasis omitted; footnote added.) Reasonably construed, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants improperly exacted more than 20 percent of available funds from his inmate account to pay for filing fees owed to the federal court.
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action because each defendant was entitled to statutory immunity under General Statutes § 4-165 and, with respect to any federal claims raised in the plaintiff's complaint, qualified immunity. The defendants argued that They further argued that, insofar as the plaintiff asserted any federal law claims, those claims were barred by qualified immunity because the facts alleged by the plaintiff failed to allege that the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right.
After hearing argument on the motion, the court granted the motion to dismiss. The court stated, This appeal followed.
After oral argument before this court, we ordered the trial court to articulate whether, in granting the motion to dismiss, it relied on the defendants’ claims of statutory and/or qualified immunity and to state the factual and legal bases for its order. The court issued an articulation on October 19, 2021, stating the following:
(Citation omitted; emphasis in original; footnotes omitted.) After the court issued its articulation, this court ordered the parties to file supplemental memoranda responding to the court's articulation.3
We begin with the applicable standard of review. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Braham v. Newbould , 160 Conn. App. 294, 300–301, 124 A.3d 977 (2015).
In his principal brief to this court, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly determined that the holding of Bruce v. Samuels , supra, 577 U.S. 82, 136 S.Ct. 627, applies to him because he filed his federal cases before Bruce was decided. In the plaintiff's supplemental memorandum, which is not a model of clarity, he also claims that "facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial