Opinion
KNOCV185017656S
05-08-2018
Ian Wright v. Mary Ellen Castro et al.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Devine, James J., J.
ORDER
Devine, J.
The defendant’s motion to dismiss as to all defendants is hereby granted for the following reasons:
The method of service process by the plaintiff is clearly set forth in. Connecticut General Statutes (C.G.S.) § 52-64 and C.G.S. § 52-57(a). Service upon officers of the State who are sued in their official capacity " may be made by leaving a true and attested copy of the process, including the declaration or complaint, with the Attorney General or at his office in Hartford." See C.G.S. § 52-64.
For an " individual who is an officer or employee of the State but is not sued as such, Connecticut law requires that service be made by leaving [the summons and complaint] with the [defendant] or at his usual place of abode." Bogle-Assegai v. Connecticut, 470 F.3d 498, 507 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing C.G.S. § 52-57(a)); see also Sosa v. Commissioner of Correction, 175 Conn.App. 831, 837 (2017 (affirming judgment dismissing individual capacity claims for lack of personal jurisdiction and holding that service against state employees at the Attorney General’s Office is insufficient to sue parties in their individual capacities).
In this case, to the extent the complaint can be read to seek relief against the defendants in their individual capacities, all such claims are properly dismissed. The plaintiff did not serve them in accordance with C.G.S. § 52-57(a) but simply left the Writ, Summons and Complaint at the Office of the Attorney General. (Doc. No. 100.33, Return of Service.) This is insufficient as a matter of law.
C.G.S. § 52-46a mandates that process must be returned to the clerk of the court at least six days before the return date. " Both § § 52-46 and 52-46a are mandatory, and failure to comply with their requirements as to the time when process shall be served and returned renders the plaintiff’s action vulnerable to a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction." Prenderville v. Sinclair, 164 Conn.App. 439, 452 (2016); see also Daley v. Board of Police Commissioners, 133 Conn. 716, 719 (1947).
As to the complaint served to the defendants in their official capacities only, the return date was February 20, 2018. Process was returned to the court on February 20, 2018, which is less than six days prior to the return date. Therefore, as the complaint was not returned timely, this court should dismiss the matter in its entirety.