Opinion
No. CV 05-4011876
November 8, 2007.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
In February 2005, the plaintiff Terrell Watkins, filed a complaint pro se against the following defendants: (1) William Snider (in his individual capacity); (2) the law offices of William Snider (law office); (3) Douglas Nash, retired chief of legal services for the public defender services (in his individual capacity); and (4) the State of Connecticut. In connection with her rulings on Motions to Dismiss filed on behalf of all defendants, the Court, (Tanzer, J.) found the following facts:
The plaintiff is incarcerated in a Connecticut correctional institute. This dispute arises out of events that unfolded during and after the appeal of his criminal conviction. William Snider was appointed special public defender for the plaintiff's case. Throughout the appeal process, the plaintiff was dissatisfied with Snider's lack of communication. The plaintiff filed a grievance complaint with the statewide grievance committee. Watkins v. Snider, grievance complaint No. 01-0885. After the grievance was filed, but before the committee held a hearing, the Appellate court affirmed the plaintiff's conviction. State v. Watkins, 72 Conn.App. 804, 806 A.2d 1072 (2002). During the hearing, the plaintiff asked Snider whether he filed a petition for certification to the Connecticut Supreme Court. Snider replied, under oath, "the petition for cert. was filed . . . I believe that it was filed with permission for it to be filed late." Watkins v. Snider, grievance complaint No. 02-0985. Thereafter, the plaintiff contacted the chief clerk of the Connecticut Supreme Court to verify that Snider, had, in fact, filed the petition for certification. He discovered that no certification was filed on his behalf. The plaintiff then filed a second grievance complaint, No. 02-0985. Snider did not respond to this grievance complaint. Snider was served with a subpoena duces tecum, commanding him to appear before the grievance committee at the second hearing. He failed to show up, and did not produce the requested documents. The committee ordered Snider presented to the Superior Court because of his false statement given under oath at the first hearing, his failure to appear and produce the subpoenaed documents at the second hearing; and other unrelated matters. The Superior Court suspended Snider from the practice of law for nine months, finding that he substantially violated his duties owed to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was significantly harmed. The court, however, also found that Snider did not knowingly make a false statement. Statewide Grievance Committee v. Snider, Superior Court, judicial district of New Britain, Docket No. CV 040527192 (January 27, 2005, Robinson, J.). As to the defendant Nash, the plaintiff alleges that he complained about Snider's lack of communication during the appeals process in a written letter. Nash never replied to the letter. The plaintiff then asked the chief clerk of the Supreme Court for help. The clerk purportedly forwarded the plaintiff's letter to both Nash and Snider. The plaintiff did not receive a response from this second letter. These facts form the basis of the plaintiff's actions against all the defendants. He seeks damages for mental anguish, punitive damages, and any further relief which justice may demand.
The Court, (Tanzer, J.) went on to grant the motion to Dismiss, save for common law claims against the Defendant Snider. Defendant Snider filed a Motion for Summary Judgment dated May 12, 2006 as to the plaintiff's remaining or surviving claims. The motion together with an objection thereto were argued before the Hon. Vanessa Bryant on Dec. 11, 2006. Judge Bryant was nominated and confirmed as a United States District Court Judge for the District of Connecticut thereafter and assumed her duties in connection therewith, without ruling on the motion. On October 15, 2007, the plaintiff and counsel for the defendant appeared and reargued the Motion for Summary Judgment.
The defendant's argument is that the defendant enjoyed an immunity in connection with his testimony at his grievance proceedings as the proceedings are "quasi-judicial" in nature. The court agrees with the defendant's statement of the law. However, the court cannot agree with the defendant's statement of the facts. While the court is not entirely unsympathetic to the defendant's position, (the plaintiff's eight-page complaint being almost perfectly unintelligible; e.g. the only time the words " mental anguish" appear in the complaint is in the prayer for relief entitled "Requested Relief " . . . 2. Mental Anguish . . .), Judge Tanzer clearly found that the Plaintiff's common law complaints against the defendant were broader than the statements made at the grievance proceeding.
Watkins alleges 42 U.S.C. § 1983 violations, but a reading of the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff," Brookridge District Ass'n. v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 259 Conn. 607, 611, 793 A.2d 215 (2002), shows that he also alleges state common law claims. He alleges that (1) he did not have proper assistance of counsel; (2) Snider misled him; (3) Snider gave him false information under oath and committed perjury against him, and (4) Nash was negligent in his actions because Nash did not help the plaintiff and was responsible for the actions of Snider under respondeat superior. He asks this court to hear this case, invoking § 1983 and Connecticut state law. A reading in a light most favorable to Watkins shows that he alleges the defendants actions were in violation of Connecticut common law and caused him mental anguish.
and
The plaintiff's alleged mental anguish stems, in part, (emphasis added) from Snider's actions with regard to the grievance hearings.
The Motion For Summary Judgment is Denied.