McKinnon v. Gardner

── McKinnon v. Gardner ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: April 28, 2026 Author: Elgo Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  McKinnon v. Gardner JAMES MCKINNON v. MR. GARDNER CORRECTION OFFICER ET AL. (AC 47981) Elgo, Clark and Westbrook, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s judgment dismissing his civil action brought against the defendants, six employees of the Department of Correction, in both their individual and official capacities, pursuant to federal statute (42 U.S.C. § 1983). The plaintiff claimed that the court improperly dismissed his action for lack of personal jurisdiction. Held: The trial court improperly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, as it was undisputed that the plaintiff complied with the service of process requirements in the relevant statutes (§§ 52-57 (a) and 52-64 (b)). This court concluded that the doctrine of sovereign immunity deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims against the defendants in their official capacities, and, therefore, the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s action in that regard was not improper. This court declined to address the merits of the defendants’ alternative ground of affirmance with respect to the doctrine of qualified immunity, as a motion to dismiss was not the proper procedural vehicle to raise the quali- fied immunity defense in response to claims brought pursuant to § 1983, and the trial court did not rule on the defendants’ contention that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the qualified immunity defense. Argued November 20, 2025—officially released April 28, 2026 Procedural History Action to recover damages for alleged violations of the plaintiff’s civil rights, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New London, where the court, Spallone, J., granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Reversed in part; further proceedings. James McKinnon, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff).  McKinnon v. Gardner Evan O’Roark, deputy solicitor general, with whom, on the brief, was William Tong, attorney general, for the appellees (defendants). Opinion ELGO, J. The self-represented plaintiff, James McKin- non, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants, six employ- ees of the Department of Correction (department).1 On app