Opinion
AC 44171
10-25-2022
Jose AYUSO v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Jose Ayuso, self-represented, the appellant (petitioner). Lisamaria T. Proscino, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attorney general, Clare Kindall, solicitor general, and Robert S. Dearington, former assistant attorney general, for the appellee (respondent).
Jose Ayuso, self-represented, the appellant (petitioner).
Lisamaria T. Proscino, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attorney general, Clare Kindall, solicitor general, and Robert S. Dearington, former assistant attorney general, for the appellee (respondent).
Prescott, Seeley and Sheldon, Js.
PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Jose Ayuso, appeals following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the habeas court denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he alleged deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of the eighth amendment to the United States constitution. The gravamen of the petitioner's deliberate indifference claim is that the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, is providing inadequate medical treatment for the petitioner's back pain and for a lump on his inner thigh, including by not providing the petitioner with a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan and back surgery.
In its memorandum of decision, the habeas court expressly credited the testimony of the respondent's medical expert, who opined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the petitioner has received adequate medical treatment and that there was no medical indication for either surgery or an MRI scan. On the basis of that expert testimony as well as that of the petitioner's treating physician, the habeas court ultimately found that "the petitioner received medically appropriate treatment for [his leg] [and] for his back pain." The petitioner's arguments on appeal are limited to attacking the credibility determinations of the habeas court, which, as we have repeatedly indicated, we will not second-guess on appeal. See, e.g., Noze v. Commissioner of Correction , 177 Conn. App. 874, 887, 173 A.3d 525 (2017) ("[i]t is simply not the role of this court on appeal to second-guess credibility determinations made by the habeas court"); Jolley v. Commissioner of Correction , 98 Conn. App. 597, 599, 910 A.2d 982 (2006) ("[W]e must defer to the [trier of fact's] assessment of the credibility of the witnesses based on its firsthand observation of their conduct, demeanor and attitude. ... The habeas judge, as the trier of facts, is the sole arbiter of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)), cert. denied, 282 Conn. 904, 920 A.2d 308 (2007). We conclude, on the basis of our review of the record, the briefs, and the arguments of the parties, that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate, in accordance with Simms v. Warden , 230 Conn. 608, 612, 646 A.2d 126 (1994), that the court abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal.
The appeal is dismissed.