*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing 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 Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest 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 the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** DAVID TAYLOR v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 44665) Prescott, Suarez and Bishop, Js. Syllabus The petitioner, a citizen of the United Kingdom who had been convicted of murder, sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming, inter alia, that his constitutional rights to procedural due process and equal protection were violated when the respondent Commissioner of Correction assigned a certain risk level to him, classified him as a public safety risk and limited his access to certain prison rehabilitative programs and other services. The habeas court dismissed the petition, concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the petitioner’s claims. On the granting of certification, the petitioner appealed to this court. Held: 1. The habeas court properly dismissed the habeas petition with respect to the petitioner’s procedural due process claim, the petitioner having failed to sufficiently allege, under the stigma plus test, a cognizable liberty interest over which the court had subject matter jurisdiction; contrary to the petitioner’s contention that being assigned a certain risk level and classified as a public safety risk satisfied the stigma portion of the stigma plus test, he failed to sufficiently allege facts that, if taken as true, established stigma, as it appeared that the respondent was mindful that the petitioner was a British citizen subject to deportation upon completion of his sentence, and it was likely that his conviction of murder itself was the source of any stigma of being a public safety risk. 2. The habeas court improperly dismissed the petitioner’s equal protection claim, in which he sufficiently alleged that he was treated differently from similarly situated prisoners because of his alienage and British citizenship; in the present case, because the habeas petition alleged that the respondent denied the petitioner access to rehabilitative programs and other services that were available to inmates who are United States citizens, the petitioner sufficiently alleged a cognizable violation of his right …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals