DocketNumber: No. CV 98-0419862S
Citation Numbers: 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 10369
Judges: PITTMAN, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 8/18/2000
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The petitioner brings this action praying for a writ of habeas corpus against the respondent warden. The petitioner claims that the respondent is subjecting him to unlawful confinement because of the threat of disciplinary action if the petitioner fails to comply with the mandates of the registration statute. The petitioner claims that the statute is unconstitutional because it compels him to undergo an unlawful search1 and because it exacts an ex post facto penalty.2
The respondent has moved to dismiss the action on three grounds: (1) that part of the petitioner's case is moot, (2) that part of the case is not ripe for adjudication, and (3) that all of the case states no claim under Connecticut's law of habeas corpus.
A word must first be said about the grounds that may be asserted in a motion to dismiss a prisoner habeas corpus action. Unlike the motion to dismiss authorized by Conn. P. B. §
The petitioner's assertions are that he was or is likely to be subject to discipline by the respondent if he is steadfast in his refusal to submit a DNA sample or to provide identifying information, such as a recent photograph and his residence address upon his discharge from the custody of the Department of Correction. After the petitioner filed this action, he allowed the respondent to collect a blood sample for DNA analysis, and, in consideration, a prior disciplinary ticket was expunged from his Correction Department record. This first claim of the petitioner is clearly moot.
What remains then is the petitioner's claim regarding jeopardy for failure to supply registration information. The respondent responds that any jeopardy to the petitioner for refusing to give registration information — usually collected in the weeks just prior to discharge — is nearly a decade away and is thus not ripe for adjudication. The respondent further submits that none of this really involves a deprivation of constitutional rights as a result of or during the petitioner's confinement by the respondent, but rather is an end run around the more orderly requirements of a civil rights lawsuit against the state and its agencies under
A reading of current case law regarding prisoner petitions in Connecticut supports this view. An inmate may properly use a habeas petition to challenge confinement that violates his rights under the
In fact in the petitioner's claim here — that the sex offender registration statutes are unconstitutional — the very statutes that he challenges are ones that do not appear to implicate the Commissioner of Correction at all. Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec.
That being the case, the claims of the petitioner against the respondent fail to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.
Patty Jenkins Pittman, Judge