LOIS TANZER, J.
On January 8, 2007, the plaintiff commenced this action alleging violation of his constitutional rights against five correctional officers at the Osborn Correctional Institution. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants, "R. Perez, Wheeler, Robidoux, Ortiz and Capitan are employees of the Connecticut Department of Corrections." The sheriff's return indicates that each defendant was served by leaving a copy of the complaint at the Office of the Attorney General.
The plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he was subjected to harassment and retaliation in the form of derogatory comments which he alleges placed his life in jeopardy. He does not claim any actual physical injury. He claims that he witnessed "staff misconduct" in the form of a correctional officer allowing one inmate to purchase a commissary item from another inmate.
When he made this clear, he was threatened with "hard time" and he reported it further. The plaintiff claims he then wanted to call the State Police, was not allowed the opportunity to do so, and was further threatened. The plaintiff alleges that all of this happened in September of 2004.
The plaintiff further alleges that in November of 2006, he was given a false Disciplinary Report at prison for disobeying a direct order and lost his inmate job in retaliation for the September 2004 incident. The plaintiff also asserts complaints about how the Disciplinary Report was processed, claiming he received two copies.
At oral argument, the plaintiff asserted he lost his job for thirty days.
The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $100,000.00 and punitive damages in the amount of $200,000.00. He also seeks injunctive relief in the form of an order preventing retaliatory acts against him by the defendants.
The defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject CT Page 13636 matter jurisdiction on the ground of Sovereign Immunity.
"We have long recognized the validity of the common-law principle that the state cannot be sued without its consent . . . We have also recognized that because the state can act only through its officers and agents, a suit against a state officer concerning a matter in which the officer represents the state is, in effect, against the state." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Miller v. Egan, 265 Conn. 301, 313, 828 A.2d 549 (2003).
"In the absence of legislative authority . . . we have declined to permit any monetary award against the state or its officials." Doe v. Heintz, 204 Conn. 17, 32, 526 A.2d 1318 (1987). "The sovereign immunity enjoyed by the state is not absolute, and our Supreme Court has recognized limited exceptions to the doctrine. These are: (1) when the legislature, either expressly or by force of a necessary implication, statutorily waives the state's sovereign immunity . . . (2) when an action seeks declaratory or injunctive relief on the basis of a substantial claim that the state or one of its officers has violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights . . . and (3) when an action seeks declaratory or injunctive relief on the basis of a substantial allegation of wrongful conduct to promote an illegal purpose in excess of the officer's statutory authority." (Citations omitted; emphasis added). Tuchman v. State, 89 Conn.App. 745, 753, 878 A.2d 384, cert. denied, 275 Conn. 920, 883 A.2d 1252 (2005). "The allegations of such a complaint and the factual underpinnings if placed in issue, must clearly demonstrate an incursion upon constitutionally protected interests." (Emphasis added.) Barde v. Board of Trustees, 207 Conn. 59, 64, 539 A.2d 1000 (1988).
In this case, the plaintiff has served the defendants in their official capacity, has not sued or even alleged that he sues them in their individual capacities. Sovereign immunity bars this claim against state officials in their official capacities for monetary damages. "In the absence of legislative authority . . . we have declined to permit any monetary award against the state or its officials." Doe v. Heintz, supra 204 Conn. 32.
Further, insofar as the plaintiff is seeking equitable relief, his allegations, even when read in a light most favorable to the pleader, are insufficient to demonstrate a substantial claim that the state or one of its officers has violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights. Tuchman v. State, supra 89 Conn.App. 753. The motion to dismiss is granted.
CT Page 13637
CT Page 13638