Opinion
CIVIL 3:23-cv-107 (AWT)
08-30-2023
JOHN ALAN SAKON, Plaintiff, v. JOHN JOHNSON, F PERRONE, BRUCE D. SKEHAN, PETER BRANDER, NEAL CAVANAUGH, MICHAEL ROBERTS, PETER J. CELIO, WILMARY LABONTE, DANIELLE STONE-MITCHELL, CHRISTOPHER FERREIRA, FRANCELIA MARIE SEVIN, DENNIS O'TOOLE, SETH CONANT, FREED MARCROFT LLC, TOWN OF GLASTONBURY, TOWN OF MANCHESTER, and STATE OF CONNECTICUT, Defendants.
ORDER RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
ALVIN W. THOMPSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On August 22, 2023, the court dismissed plaintiff John Alan Sakon's claims against defendants State of Connecticut and Christopher Ferreira in his official capacity as barred by the Eleventh Amendment and common law sovereign immunity. On August 25, 2023, the plaintiff moved for reconsideration and requested that the court set aside the order and permit him to amend the complaint or file an additional brief in opposition. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is being granted in part and denied in part.
Because the plaintiff had until August 25, 2023 to file his opposition to the defendants' motion and duly filed his opposition by that date, the plaintiff's motion is granted to the extent the plaintiff seeks to have the court consider the arguments in his opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss.
Upon reconsideration of the court's August 22, 2023 order in light of the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, his opposition to the defendants' motion, and the documents attached to these filings, the motion for reconsideration is denied to the extent the plaintiff seeks to set aside the order dismissing the plaintiff's claims against the defendants.
“The Eleventh Amendment immunity to which a State official is entitled in a section 1983 suit depends on the capacity in which he is sued.” Gyadu v. Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 930 F.Supp. 738, 747 (D. Conn. 1996). “To the extent that a State official is sued in his official capacity, such a suit is deemed to be a suit against the State, and the official is entitled to invoke the Eleventh Amendment immunity belonging to the State.” Id. (citing Gan v. City of New York, 996 F.2d 522, 529 (2d Cir. 1993)). “As to claims brought against a State official in his or her individual capacity, the State official has no Eleventh Amendment immunity.” Id. (citing Gan, 996 F.2d at 529).
The court dismissed only claims against defendant State of Connecticut and defendant Ferreira in his official capacity, but the arguments the plaintiff advances in his opposition address solely claims he has made against defendant Ferreira in his individual capacity. See Pl.'s Opp. (ECF No. 67) at 1-2 (discussing qualified immunity and claims pursuant to Section 1983). The plaintiff contends, for instance, that “Defendant Ferreira and the State of Connecticut have failed to establish that they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.” Id. at 14. However, “a defense of qualified immunity may properly be raised only with respect to claims asserted against a defendant in his individual capacity,” Frank v. Relin, 1 F.3d 1317, 1327 (2d Cir. 1993), because “neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons' under § 198 3,” Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 4 91 U.S. 58, 71 (1989), and they “thus are not subject to liability for deprivations of constitutional rights thereunder,” Dube v. State Univ. of New York, 900 F.2d 587, 595 (2d Cir. 1990).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Order 66 and Motion to Set Aside Order 66 (ECF No. 68) is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
It is so ordered.