DocketNumber: No. X07-CV02 0079052S
Citation Numbers: 2003 Conn. Super. Ct. 1811
Judges: SFERRAZZA, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 2/7/2003
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
When assessing whether counts of a complaint survive a motion to dismiss based on immunity, the court must assume the truth of the allegations pleaded and consider those reasonable and logical inferences which may flow from those assumed facts which are most favorable to the pleader. Hanna v. Capitol Region Mental Health Center,
The plaintiff, Anthony Torres, asserts that he is an inmate incarcerated at Northern Correctional Institution. Torres is serving a sentence imposed for conviction of ten counts of sexual assault first degree, in violation of General Statutes §
Pared to its core, the plaintiff's amended complaint avers that Butler and Knapp have repeatedly, in loud voices replete with vulgarity and slang, within earshot of other inmates, characterized the plaintiff as a CT Page 1812 child molester; that Butler and Knapp, by virtue of experience and position, knew that, within the prison environment, suspected child abusers are frequently subjected to physical attack by other inmates because of that status; that these two defendants engaged in this course of conduct for the purpose of harassing, ridiculing, and intimidating the plaintiff, and to incite other inmates to act hostilely toward him. The amended complaint further alleges that Coates, Ouellet, Myers, Murphy, and Armstrong, who hold higher echelon positions within the department, received and ignored numerous complaints from the plaintiff regarding the behavior of Butler and Knapp and failed to remedy the situation. Finally, the plaintiff alleges that the above-described conduct by the defendants caused him to suffer severe emotional distress for which he seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. The motion to dismiss pertains only to the plaintiff's claims for monetary damages.
Parenthetically, it may be noted that our legislature has expressly waived sovereign immunity for claims by inmates against the state, if the inmate has suffered physical injury which results "in a fatality or in a permanent handicap." General Statutes §
Confronted by a threshold immunity claim, the court does not decide whether the complaint states a legally sufficient cause of action, but rather examines the pleadings to decide if adequate facts are alleged "with respect to personal immunity under §
It is an unassailable proposition that corrections employees act wantonly and maliciously, and outside the scope of their employment, if they purposely attempt to provoke inmates to assault another inmate. Despite the two defendants' arguments to the contrary, the fact that the employees used technically true statements as a prod to instigate hostility toward the plaintiff is immaterial.
The amended complaint describes a pattern of misconduct wherein these two employees intentionally or recklessly taunted the plaintiff by broadcasting the pedophilic nature of his crimes with a frequency, volume, and proximity to other inmates, in an environment particularly hostile toward child molesters, from which a trier-of-fact could reasonably and logically conclude that they intended to create fear and emotional distress in the plaintiff concerning his safety and the resultant necessity for his isolation.
These defendants argue that as long as their statements regarding the plaintiff's conviction as a child abuser are accurate, their activity cannot constitute intentional or malicious behavior. The court's research discloses no Connecticut appellate case which has arrived at that conclusion. The court rules that the surrounding circumstances, such as frequency, coarseness of language, volume, and type of audience can combine with a technically correct statement so as to result in wanton or malicious action or activity and fall outside the scope of employment of correctional personnel. Whether the plaintiff can prove these allegations is another matter, but, if proven, such misbehavior wears no mantle of immunity under §
In the present case, the plaintiff alleges that he used the prison grievance system to complain about his mistreatment by Butler and Knapp to no avail. It is difficult to comprehend how such inaction can constitute action outside the scope of the reviewing officers' duties for the purpose of determining whether statutory immunity is unavailable to them under §
While the failure to act upon his complaints may form the factual predicate for a negligence complaint, it is inadequate to establish that these defendants acted recklessly, wilfully, wantonly, or maliciously so as to vitiate the personal immunity conferred upon them by §
Consequently, the motion to dismiss is granted, by virtue of the personal immunity conferred by §
Sferrazza, J. CT Page 1815