Opinion
No. CV 10-5034878-S
March 9, 2011
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO DISMISS
The defendant, State's Attorney Michael Gailor, moves to dismiss the complaint against him based on the court's lack of jurisdiction. The defendant's motion to dismiss will be granted for the following reasons.
In 2004, the plaintiff was prosecuted and convicted of inciting injury to persons, criminal attempt to assault a prosecutor, and criminal attempt to commit murder. In 2005, the plaintiff filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Connecticut Superior Court, challenging his conviction. Defendant testified at this hearing; the court dismissed the petition after finding defendant's testimony credible.
The plaintiff, Gary Damato, has sued the defendant in both his official and individual capacity, claiming deliberate falsification and fabrication of testimony during Damato's habeus corpus proceeding and seeking $3,000,000 in damages, plus attorneys fees.
"A motion to dismiss properly attacks the jurisdiction of the court, essentially asserting that the plaintiff cannot as a matter of law and fact state a cause of action that should be heard by the court . . ." Gurliacci v. Mayer, 218 Conn. 531, 544, (1991). Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong. Diaz v. Palmese, 2010 WL 5188443, 1 (Conn.Super.), citing Doe v. Roe, 246 Conn. 652, 661. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction. Id.
Upon review of a motion to dismiss to determine whether a complaint survives, particularly "when a trial decides a jurisdiction question raised by a pretrial motion to dismiss of the basis of the complaint alone, it must consider the allegations of the complaint, including the facts necessarily implied from the allegations, in their most favorable light." Diaz, 2010 WL 5188443 at 1.
The defendant challenges this court's jurisdiction based on his absolute prosecutorial immunity. State's attorneys are immune from tort liability for acts committed in the performance of their duties as state's attorneys. Barese v. Clark, 62 Conn.App. 58 (2010). The Supreme Court has summarized prosecutorial immunity stating: "Prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability for their conduct in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the state's case . . . insofar as that conduct is intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process . . . it was recognized that the duties of the prosecutor in his role as advocate for the State involve actions preliminary to the initiation of a prosecution and actions apart from the courtroom." Id. at 65. Such immunity, when applicable, bars a civil lawsuit, "even if it leaves the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest actions deprives him of liberty." Diaz, 2010 WL 5188443 at 2. Prosecutorial Immunity applies only to acts undertaken as a function of the prosecutorial position yet absolute immunity covers "virtually all acts, regardless of motivation, associated with the prosecutor's function as an advocate." Id. at 3. Thus, as long as the defendant's actions were within his function as a state's attorney, he is entitled to absolute immunity.
Plaintiff sets forth limited facts in his complaint against the defendant. However, from the complaint, it is clear that the defendant's actions were pursuant to his function as state's attorney and he is therefore entitled to absolute immunity. It is not uncommon for state's attorney's to testify at habeas hearings, thus his testimony at defendant's own habeas hearing falls within the scope of his prosecutorial role. Biggs v. Warden, 26 Conn.App. 52 (1991). The plaintiff's remaining assertions relate to the initiation and presentation of the state's case and, as previously noted, is conduct which falls under the absolute immunity afforded to prosecutors.
The court finds that the defendant's acts were committed in the performance of his duty as a state's attorney and thereby absolutely immune from tort liability. As a result, the court lacks jurisdiction over this matter and the defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby granted.