Wright v. Giles
Decision Date | 17 November 2020 |
Docket Number | AC 42686 |
Citation | 201 Conn.App. 353,242 A.3d 146 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | Ian WRIGHT v. Carleton GILES et al. |
Ian Wright, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff).
Janelle R. Medeiros, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attorney general, and Clare E. Kindall, solicitor general, for the appellees (defendants).
Moll, Suarez and DiPentima, Js.
The plaintiff, Ian Wright, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of the defendants, Carleton Giles, Richard Sparraco, Scott Semple, and George Jepsen, to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.1 We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The record reveals the following facts and procedural history. As we stated in Wright v. Commissioner of Correction, 201 Conn. App. 339, 342, 242 A.3d 756 (2020) :
In March, 2018, the self-represented plaintiff initiated an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which he alleged that he sent an application to the Board of Pardons and Paroles requesting a deportation parole eligibility hearing, but to date has not received such a hearing. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants violated his federal and state constitutional rights to due process by failing to implement policies, procedures and/or regulations providing him with a deportation parole hearing and/or providing him with eligibility. He specifically alleged that the mandatory language "shall" used in General Statutes § 54-125d(c) creates a legitimate expectation in parole to aliens who have served at least 50 percent of their sentence. On April 16, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the plaintiff's lack of standing and sovereign immunity. In a memorandum of law in support of their motion to dismiss, the defendants argued that the plaintiff lacked standing because no mandatory, statutory right to parole exists.
The plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. On January 23, 2019, the court issued an order that read: "The defendant's motion to dismiss is granted." In response to a motion for articulation filed by the plaintiff, on May 22, 2019, the trial court explained its dismissal as follows:
The plaintiff's principal argument on appeal is that his claim that due process entitled him to a deportation parole eligibility hearing pursuant to § 54-125d(c)2 demonstrates a liberty interest in deportation parole eligibility sufficient to invoke the court's subject matter jurisdiction. The defendants contend that the plaintiff has no such liberty interest and argue that the court's decision should be affirmed on the alternative ground of lack of standing.3
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Heisinger v. Cleary , 323 Conn. 765, 776 n.12, 150 A.3d 1136 (2016).
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Manning v. Feltman, 149 Conn. App. 224, 230–31, 91 A.3d 466 (2014).
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Steeneck v. University of Bridgeport , 235 Conn. 572, 579, 668 A.2d 688 (1995).
(Citations omitted; emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Broadnax v. New Haven , 270 Conn. 133, 154–55, 851 A.2d 1113 (2004).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wright v. Comm'r of Corr.
...rights to due process were violated when he was not given a deportation parole eligibility hearing. See Wright v. Giles , 201 Conn. App. 353, 242 A.3d 146 (2020).On September 19, 2018, pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29, the habeas court provided notice of a hearing to determine whether, int......
- State v. Parker