Summary
finding that plaintiff's claims against an assistant clerk and court operations assistant "based on conduct which occurred in their official capacities on behalf of the [Connecticut] Judicial Branch in the underlying [summary process eviction ] action . . . [were barred by] . . . the doctrine of [quasi-] judicial immunity." (internal quotation marks, citation, and footnote omitted)
Summary of this case from Gyadu v. BainerOpinion
HHDCV165042353S
10-11-2017
Michelle Sims v. William C. Pitt, Assistant Clerk et al
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS #103
Kevin G. Dubay, J.
The present case arises from a 2015 summary process eviction and execution action against the plaintiff, Michelle Sims. The plaintiff brings the present action against the defendants, William C. Pitt, Assistant Clerk; and Eric Jench, Court Operations Assistant, based on conduct which occurred in their official capacities on behalf of the Judicial Branch in the underlying action. " As a result, their conduct is squarely protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity." Grzeika v. Clerk's Office New Britain Superior Court, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-14-5038199-S, (February 17, 2015, Elgo, J.).
The defendants also raise sovereign immunity and statutory immunity, General Statutes § 4-165, as grounds for dismissal of this action. " The doctrine of sovereign immunity protects state officials and employees from lawsuits resulting from the performance of their duty. The doctrine protects the state against lawsuits as well as protecting against liability, and in effect, [it protects] against having to litigate at all." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hultman v. Blumenthal, 67 Conn.App. 613, 620, 787, 787 A.2d 666, cert. denied, 259 Conn. 929, 793 A.2d 253 (2002). The complaint specifically identifies the defendants in their capacities as officers of the state, conducting their specific duties as such officers, and fails to allege that any exception to sovereign immunity applies or that the defendants acted outside of their employment or wilfully, recklessly, or maliciously. Accordingly, the defendants' motion to dismiss is granted on these bases as well.
" Absolute judicial immunity bars the plaintiff's state law claims against judicial defendants in their official capacities . . . Clerks, like judges, are immune from damage suits for performance of tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Traylor v. Gerratana, 148 Conn.App. 605, 613-14, 88 A.3d 552, cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 444, 190 L.Ed.2d 336 (2014); see also Grant v. Quinn, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-10-5035130-S, (February 8, 2011, Aurigemma, J.) (" [q]uasi-judicial immunity has been extended to state officials other than judges who perform functions integral to the judicial process").
To the extent the defendants are referenced in the complaint, such references are based on the defendants' performance of actions that were integral to the judicial process in connection with the underlying eviction and execution action. Accordingly, as other courts have previously held, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action, and the court grants the defendants' motion to dismiss. See Sims v. Hammer, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-15-5040190-S, (June 9, 2016, Peck, J.); Sims v. Rodriguez, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-15-5040189-S, (June 9, 2016, Peck, J.); Sims v. Rogers, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-15-5040191-S, (June 9, 2016, Peck, J.).