Wine v. Mulligan

Citations

• 213 Conn. App. 298

Syllabus

The incarcerated plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendants, employees of the Department of Correction, alleging, inter alia, that the defendants improperly confiscated materials in his outgoing mail in violation of his constitutional right of access to the courts. The defen- dants filed a motion to strike the complaint, arguing that the conduct alleged did not constitute a violation of his constitutional rights and because the plaintiff failed to allege the specific personal involvement of four of the defendants in the conduct claimed to constitute a violation. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to strike and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Held that the plaintiff could not prevail on his claim that the trial court erred in granting the defendants' motion to strike: the plaintiff's complaint failed to allege the specific personal involvement of the defendants C, M, S and T in the actual confiscation of his mail, and, therefore, the plaintiff could not prevail on his claim as to those defendants because he failed to assert that they personally were involved in the alleged violation; moreover, the court properly granted the defendants' motion to strike as to the defendant W because, although the plaintiff alleged that W confiscated his mail, he failed to allege that he suffered any actual injury as a result of such confiscation; furthermore, because the plaintiff did not allege that the materials were being mailed to his attor- ney or to the court, he failed to plead that the confiscation hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim or that his access to the courts was frustrated or impeded by their confiscation. Argued February 15—officially released June 14, 2022