DocketNumber: No. CV 92 0001550 S
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 5494
Judges: SFERRAZZA, J.
Filed Date: 5/23/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
A motion to quash may be used to attack the legal sufficiency of a petition seeking habeas corpus relief, Practice Book § 532;Macri v. Hayes,
The amended petition in this case alleges that the petitioner is an inmate who has been in punitive segregation since March of 1992, and, while in such status, the respondent has refused to allow the petitioner visits with his daughter. The respondent contends that because this claim relates only incidentally to the petitioner's confinement and does not attack the fact of confinement or its length, the habeas court lacks jurisdiction to grant habeas corpus relief. The court agrees.
"The writ of habeas corpus is available to a person restrained of his liberty who desires a hearing to determine the legality of his detention," Flaherty v. Warden,
Our Supreme Court has implicitly recognized an exception to this proposition where the complaint asserts a violation of the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment,Arey v. Warden,
In Dukuley v. Warden,
In Vicenzo v. Warden,
At least one lower court decision has interpreted the decision in Vincenzo v. Warden, supra, to eliminate conditions of confinement claims from the jurisdictional realm of habeas corpus relief. In Allen v. Commissioner, 8 Conn. L Reptr. No. 15, 478 (April 12, 1993), Judge Hodgson held that, as a consequence ofVincenzo v. Warden, supra, a writ of habeas corpus may legitimately challenge only the fact of custody or its duration but not the circumstances of prison life, Id., 480.
With this background in mind, the court concludes that Dukuley v. Warden, supra, is no longer viable precedent to permit a habeas Court to hear and decide claims, regarding conditions of confinement in general. The court holds that a habeas court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear and decide only those cases that challenge the fact or duration of imprisonment and such jurisdiction does not extend to challenges to the conditions of confinement unless the claim amounts to one alleging a violating of the bar against cruel and unusual punishment such as was considered under Arey v. Warden, supra.
For these reasons, the motion to quash is granted, and the petition is dismissed.
Sferrazza, J.