The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim seeking monetary damages for a violation of Article First, § 9 of the Connecticut Constitution against Defendants because the decision to recognize a new state constitutional tort should be made by the Connecticut courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1); see also Holley v. Cook, No. 3:20CV170 (MPS), 2021 WL 5302107, at *12 (D. Conn. Nov. 15, 2021) (declining to reinstate Article First, § 9 claim after Anthony A. because the Connecticut Supreme Court had still not recognized a private right of action for damages under Article First, § 9 in the context of an inmate sex offender classification), M.A. v. City of Torrington, No. 3:10CV1890 (JBA), 2012 WL 3985166, at *4 (D. Conn. Sept. 10, 2012) (“[T]he [c]ourt declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [the p]laintiffs' constitutional claims, leaving any such recognition of new state constitutional torts to Connecticut courts, based on the case-by-case approach of Binette and on considerations of federal-state comity.”), Lopez v. Smiley, 375 F.Supp.2d 19, 26 (D. Conn. 2005) (“In light of the Connecticut Supreme Court's explicit statement in Binette that the Supreme Court did not intend to create a cause of action for money damages for every alleged violatio