Opinion
CV135037506S
11-10-2016
Kevin M. Lindsay v. Warden P. Murphy
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO DISMISS (#101)
Jane S. Scholl, J.
Introduction
This is a negligence action against the defendant, Warden P. Murphy, Warden of MacDougall Correctional, in his official capacity. The plaintiff, Kevin M. Lindsay, claims that, on August 26, 2012, he was injured at the facility when a chair he was sitting on collapsed and that he was provided inadequate medical care after the incident by the correctional facility. The defendant has moved to dismiss this action, claiming that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction by reason of the state's sovereign immunity.
Discussion
" [T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore a basis for granting a motion to dismiss . . ." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Miller v. Egan, 265 Conn. 301, 313, 828 A.2d 549 (2003). It is well settled that sovereign immunity protects the State from being sued for money damages without its consent. Doe v. Heintz, 204 Conn. 17, 32, 526 A.2d 1318 (1987). In addition, " [i]n Connecticut, we have long recognized the validity of the common-law principle that the state cannot be sued without its consent and that since the state can act only through its officers and agents a suit against a state officer is in effect one against the sovereign state." (Citations omitted.) Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615, 623, 376 A.2d 359 (1977).
The plaintiff claims that on August 5, 2013, he did give the Claims Commissioner notice of his intent to sue the state and the warden. As evidence of the fact that his claim was being considered by the Claims Commissioner, he submits a letter from the Department of Administrative Services to him in 2014 that the state had a lien on any proceeds from a cause of action regarding a loss which occurred on August 26, 2012. The plaintiff then, in 2015, inquired of the Claims Commissioner as to the status of his claim. By motion to dismiss the claim, dated December 16, 2015, the Attorney General claimed that the notice of claim was filed late on September 16, 2015 and should therefore be dismissed. The Claims Commissioner then dismissed the claim on January 29, 2016.
" When sovereign immunity has not been waived, the claims commissioner is authorized by statute to hear monetary claims against the state and determine whether the claimant has a cognizable claim. See General Statutes § § 4-141 through 4-165b. The claims commissioner, if he deems it 'just and equitable, ' may sanction suit against the state on any claim 'which in his opinion, presents an issue of law or fact under 'which the state, were it a private person, could be liable.' General Statutes § 4-160(a). This legislation expressly bars suits upon claims cognizable by the claims commissioner except as he may authorize, an indication of the legislative determination to preserve sovereign immunity as a defense " to monetary claims against the state not sanctioned by the commissioner or other statutory provisions. General Statutes § § 4-148(b), 4-160." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Krozser v. City of New Haven, 212 Conn. 415, 421, 562 A.2d 1080 (1989).
The plaintiff admits that the Claims Commissioner has not granted him permission to sue the state. However, he claims that, although he filed a timely request for permission to sue with the Claims Commissioner, the Claims Commissioner did not act on it. The plaintiff argues that it was the failure of the Claims Commissioner to timely consider his claim which resulted in its dismissal and he should not be penalized because of the Claims Commissioner's unreasonable conduct. " Before a claimant may pursue any monetary claim against the state, if the doctrine of sovereign immunity is applicable, the state must consent to be sued . . . The claims commissioner, as previously noted, may waive that immunity, pursuant to General Statutes § 4-160(a), and consent to suit. Until that happens, however, the Superior Court has no jurisdiction to hear any such monetary claim . . . The question whether the principles of governmental immunity from suit and liability are waived is a matter for legislative, not judicial, determination . . . In keeping with that premise, the entire legislative scheme of chapter 53, which authorizes claims against the state, makes clear that it is the claims commissioner, pursuant to legislation, that can waive sovereign immunity and not the courts. The legislation pertinent to this appeal expressly provides that, [w]hen the claims commissioner 'deems it just and equitable, he may authorize suit against the state; General Statutes § 4-160(a). . .The Superior Court, therefore, has no authority to hear a claim for monetary damages against the state when the doctrine of sovereign immunity is applicable. That jurisdiction, in the first instance, resides by statute solely in the claims commissioner." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 423-24. Therefore, even assuming that the Claims Commissioner failed to consider the plaintiff's claim in a timely manner which resulted in its dismissal, this court has no authority to allow a suit to proceed against the state when permission to sue has not been obtained from the Claims Commissioner. Nor has this court any authority to review the decision of the Claims Commissioner. The plaintiff has availed himself of the appropriate avenue for review of the dismissal by requesting such review by the General Assembly as permitted by General Statutes § § 4-158 and 4-159.
Conclusion
Since the plaintiff has not received permission to sue the state from the Claims Commissioner, this action is barred by sovereign immunity.
The Motion to Dismiss is granted.