Opinion
No. HHB-CV07 401 32 27 S
April 19, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The plaintiff, Joe Burgos Vega, is an inmate presently incarcerated at the MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in Suffield, CT and brings this administrative appeal, pursuant to General Statutes §§ 4-180 and 4-183, to challenge the result of disciplinary hearings conducted by the Department of Corrections (DOC). However, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 4-166(2), the hearings conducted by the DOC are not contested cases. Therefore no appeal may be taken, and this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
"Appeals to courts from administrative agencies exist only under statutory authority. Tazza v. Planning Zoning Commission, 164 Conn. 187, 190, 319 A.2d 393 (1972); East Side Civic Assn. v. Planning Zoning Commission, 161 Conn. 558, 560, 290, A.2d 348 (1971). A statutory of right to appeal may be taken advantage of only by strict compliance with the statutory provisions by which it is crated. In re Nunez, 165 Conn. 435, 441, 334 A.2d 898 (1973); Chanosky v. City Building Supply Co., 152 Conn. 449, 451, 208 A2d 337 (1965) . . . Such provisions are mandatory, and if not complied with, render the appeal subject to abatement. Daley v. Board of Police Commissioners, 133 Conn. 716, 719, 54 A.2d 501 (1947)." Royce v. Freedom of Information Commission, 177 Conn. 1, 6, (1975); Basilicato v. Department of Public Utility Control, 197 Conn. 320, 322 (1985).
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-166(2) provides that
(2) "Contested case" means a proceeding, including but not restricted to rate-making, price fixing and licensing, in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of a party are required by state statute or regulation to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for hearing or in which a hearing is in fact held, but does not include proceedings on a petition for a declaratory ruling under section 4-176, hearings referred to in section 4-168 or hearings conducted by the Department of Correction or the Board of Pardons and Paroles.
Thus, contested case does not include the hearings conducted which resulted in the guilty findings in the present case for fighting and contraband. See also Francis v. Chevair, 99 Conn.App. 789 (2007). In Francis v. Chevair our Appellate Court expressly noted in footnote 5, "that contested cases do not include `hearings conducted by the Department of Correction or the Board of Parole.' " P.A. 04-94, § 1. The new definition became effective on October 1, 2004, expressly bars appeals such as the plaintiff's. Francis v. Chevair, 99 Conn.App. at 793, n. 5. (emphasis added). There is no statutory right to appeal a decision of the DOC disciplinary hearing officer under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183. See Missionary Society of Connecticut v. Board of Pardons and Paroles, 272 Conn. 647, 652 (2005), in which our Supreme Court stated, "the legislature has expressly excluded proceedings before the board from the class of `contested cases.' Therefore, decisions in such proceedings are not `final decisions' for purposes of § 4-183(a)." The same statute, § 4-166(2) requires the same result with regard to hearings conducted by the DOC. Accordingly, there is no right to appeal from the decisions of the disciplinary hearings conducted by the DOC. See Nine State Street, LLC v. Planning Zoning Commission, 270 Conn. 42, 46, 850 A.2d 1032 (2004) (in absence of statutory authority there is no right to appeal from agency decision).
In Francis v. Chevair, 99 Conn.App. 789 (2007), our Appellate Court noted that Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-78a(a)(1) provides "[t]he provisions of Chapter 54 shall apply to the Department to Correction, except that in adopting regulations in regards to riot control procedures, security and emergency procedures, disciplinary action or classification the Department of Correction shall not be required to follow the procedures in sections 3-168, 4-168a, 4-168b, 4-173, 4-174 and 4-176 . . ." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-78(b) states: "In cases involving disciplinary action classification and out-of state transfers, the Department of Correction shall not be required to follow the procedures of sections 4-176e to 4-182, inclusive, provided all procedural safeguards are afforded at such hearings to insure due process of law."
Department of Correction disciplinary hearings are not contested cases governed by the uniform administrative appeals procedure act. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-78a. Therefore, there is no statutory right to appeal a decision of a Department of Correction disciplinary hearing officer under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183. See Francis v. Chevair, 99 Conn.App. 789 (2007).
In the present case, the plaintiff seeks to appeal two Department of Correction disciplinary hearing decisions under the UAPA. Such an appeal is not statutorily authorized. In fact, appeals from such DOC disciplinary hearings are specifically exempted from contested cases by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-166(2). Absent statutory authority for the appeal, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain it. See Steadwell v. Warden, 186 Conn. 153, 156 (1982). The appeal is dismissed.