Opinion
TSRCV154007545S
06-09-2017
Andres Sosa v. Warden, State Prison
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Filed June 20, 2017
HABEAS TRIAL/MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Samuel J. Sferrazza, S.J.
THE COURT: Good morning, everyone.
All right. This is the matter of Sosa v. Warden, Docket No. CV15-4007545. If, Counsel, you'd identify yourself.
ATTY. PARILLE: Good morning. Neil Parille, Attorney General's Office, on behalf of the commissioner.
THE COURT: All right. And Mr. Sosa appears on his own behalf, and is this the interpreter?
THE INTERPRETER: Spanish interpreter, your Honor, Pablo Sterling.
THE COURT: All right. And you are a court employed
THE INTERPRETER: Yes, your Honor, certified through the State of Connecticut.
THE COURT: And you've been previously sworn?
THE INTERPRETER: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Before we begin, I have reviewed the petitioner's petition more than once and the relief requested. I'm not sure that this Court, a habeas court, can provide any relief in this case.
Mr. Sosa, you seem to be indicating that your First Amendment free speech rights are being violated because of transfers, classification, category, risk category, and destruction of personal property, and you request that, in your request for relief, that the Department of Corrections Population Management stop transferring you in a retaliatory manner, declare that the Department of Corrections has engaged in retaliatory actions in violation of your First Amendment rights. Do we want to--stop interfering with your job assignments and damaging your personal property, to return or replace your personal property, and to leave you housed at Garner rather than other facilities and other categories.
None of these would appear to be something that a habeas corpus court could provide you with any remedy. Why are you filing this in a habeas court as opposed to filing a 1983 action to try and get the relief or administrative appeals or other injunctive relief or other avenues? I don't understand how you can get any release-relief in habeas corpus.
THE PETITIONER: Your Honor, the claim that I have, I got left here I think that it's 4, 5, 6. Right? It's about not only the destruction of property but the illegal taking of my property, which I do have a liberty interest to keep my personal property with me. When I did arrive on 2000-excuse me-in 2015 at Cheshire Correctional Institution out of MacDougall Correctional, from MacDougall Correctional Institution to Cheshire CI, I did came with certain amount of property that-and the other half of the property was left behind at MacDougall, which three day after my day for my arrival on the 30th, the original, like the permanent and the permanent property officer at Cheshire CI got all my property, and I did receive a new inventory form right there stating why these belong to me, what is in my matrix and what I have and have purchased in commissary.
So the claim that I complain here is that on my way--on the same year, 2015, in September 2 when I was getting transferred out of Cheshire CI, many items of my property was just confiscated from me.
THE COURT: Well, that's the point. You may have a property interest in that. You may even have a liberty interest concerning certain matters, but they're not appropriate to bring in a habeas corpus action. You might have rights that you can vindicate using other court actions, as I said, filing a civil 1983 action, filing administrative appeals from certain action, filing grievances. I know you have filed grievances before.
The question is how you're entitled to any habeas corpus relief.
THE PETITIONER: I would think the habeas would have the jurisdiction to order the return of all my property, 'cause it was not destroyed, and I don't think it has been destroyed. I still believe it could be stored on the same place that it was taken from me by the same person.
THE COURT: Respondent's counsel, do you want to be heard?
ATTY. PARILLE: Yes, your Honor. My recollection was that when we were last--when we were last here on this case with Judge Oliver, that Judge Oliver did dismiss most of the case. He did leave alive issues concerning property and also Mr. Sosa's current conditions of confinement.
I did make the pitch with respect to property that under Section 18-81y, that the state has a Lost Property Board for the Department of Correction where Mr. Sosa can seek reimbursement if property's been stolen or is missing or what have you.
THE COURT: Well, how does that come under habeas corpus?
ATTY. PARILLE: I made that pitch to Judge Oliver
THE COURT: Okay.
ATTY. PARILLE:--but he apparently disagreed.
THE COURT: Well, under Practice Book Section 23-29, the judicial authority may at any time upon its own motion dismiss the petition if it determines that the petition--this is subsection 2--the petition or a count thereof fails to state a claim upon which habeas court--habeas corpus relief can be granted. I'm going to find that there is no claim in this case upon which habeas corpus relief can be granted.
I will cite to several cases. For instance, the Pouncey, P-O-U-N-C-E-Y, v. Commissioner, 84 Conn.App. 734, pages 738 to 739, 854 A.2d 1129, that habeas corpus provides a special and extraordinary legal remedy for illegal detention. Questions which do not concern the lawfulness of the detention cannot properly be reviewed on habeas corpus.
I'd also indicate that there are many trial court decisions and other Appellate Court decisions, for instance Vincenzo v. Warden, 26 Conn.App. 132, 599 A.2d 31, which limit habeas corpus relief to attacks on either the fact of custody or the duration of custody. There are some exceptions but none of which seem to apply here, especially with regard to property.
I would cite other cases, in particular, the Supreme Court case of Sanchez v. Warden, 214 Conn. 23, at pages 33 to 35, 570 A.2d 673 where the Court there questioned the viability of using habeas corpus for non-in cases where it doesn't involve the fact of incarceration or the loss of incarceration, and they indicate that the fact that the inmate may have other remedies puts into doubt the question that habeas corpus provides relief for that.
I also cite the case of Morgan v. Warden . That's a superior court case decided April 25, 2003, in this judicial district indicating that habeas corpus actions in the state serve the important role of challenging the legality of the detention or confinement. While it has expanded to cover Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment, it does not allow constitutional challenges that do not go to the legalization of detention which would result in the dilution or trivialization of the great writ. Nor would habeas corpus relief be unique and provide a special extraordinary legal remedy for detention.
Based on my reviews of the petition and the claims for relief, I'm going to dismiss the habeas corpus petition under Practice Book Section 23-29, subsection 2. My comments will be transcribed for purposes of appeal under Practice Book Section 63-1 and they will be attached to and made part of the file.
THE CLERK: Your Honor, he'll be getting his notice of appellate rights.
THE COURT: We're handing notice of appellate rights where you can appeal my judgment today. THE PETITIONER: So this is it?
THE COURT: That's it for this case. Now, this is without prejudice for you to file a different kind of action, not a habeas corpus action, for instance a 93--a 1983 action making the claims you're making. You can make claims in civil court for deprivation of property without compensation. You can make those claims. I just can't provide that relief in habeas corpus.
THE PETITIONER: So the habeas corpus cannot provide the relief to order the officer to return back my property or to--'cause I have subpoenaed the night vision camera when that took place. So the Court cannot--this Court cannot neither review the action of the officer if it was done right or wrong?
THE COURT: A habeas corpus action cannot provide that relief.
THE PETITIONER: All right.
THE COURT: Again, you have--you may be able to file other actions
THE PETITIONER: I know that.
THE COURT:--including conversion of property, negligence actions, an action that your Fifth Amendment right to due process and property was taken without reasonable compensation. You may be able to file all of those. You may be able to file a federal 1983 action, state 1983 action, but not a habeas corpus relief.
THE PETITIONER: In regard of the other claims, transfer--I mean, getting transferred constantly, stuff like that.
THE COURT: The same thing with transfers and classifications. They don't fall within the habeas corpus.
THE PETITIONER: All right. So it's 1983.
THE COURT: This matter is concluded. We have another matter at two o'clock. We are adjourned on this matter.