 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mercer v. Rodriquez6/8/2004
This appeal requires that we decide whether the trial court properly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's federal claims because he failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (a). Although we conclude that the plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, we also conclude that his failure to exhaust such remedies did not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Nonetheless, we affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing the action, as a prisoner may not bring an action seeking federal relief until the prisoner has exhausted available administrative remedies.
The pro se plaintiff, Eugene P. Mercer, commenced this action in 2002 when he was in the custody of the commissioner of correction (commissioner) at the correctional institution at Cheshire. In a five part complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants, employees of the department of correction ( department), had failed to assign him to the motor vehicle marker shop (marker shop) at Cheshire on the basis of his physical disability, which violated his rights under titles I and II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (disabilities act), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (rehabilitation act), and the equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions. He sought compensatory and punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorney's fees.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, claiming that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (a) because the plaintiff had failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. They also argued that sovereign immunity barred the court's jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims for damages under the rehabilitation and disabilities acts, and that the plaintiff's claims were moot because he was no longer confined to the facility at Cheshire.
The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, agreeing that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (a). The court found that the plaintiff's claims were "grievable" and that he had failed to avail himself of the department's grievance process. The court added, in its memorandum of decision, that the rationale of the exhaustion requirement in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (a) is consistent with this state's jurisprudence on subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff appealed to this court.
The essence of the plaintiff's appellate claims is that the court improperly dismissed his complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (a) because there were no administrative remedies available to him and, further, that the court improperly determined that he had not exhausted the available administrative remedies. In their brief, the defendants argued that the court's judgment of dismissal on jurisdictional grounds should be affirmed under both 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (a) and Connecticut law. Prior to oral argument in this court, however, the defendants brought the case of Richardson v. Goord, 347 F.3d 431 (2d Cir. 2003), to our attention, which informs our decision as to how, not whether, the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
Our standard of review governing an appeal from a judgment granting a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction concerns a question of law and is plenary. Bailey v. Medical Examining Board for State Employee Disability Retirement, 75 Conn. App. 215, 219, 815 A.2d 281 (2003). " nce the question of lack of jurisdiction of a court is raised, must be disposed of no matter in what form it is presented...." (Citati
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Connecticut Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|