*********************************************** 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. *********************************************** IAN WRIGHT v. CARLETON GILES ET AL. (AC 42686) Moll, Suarez and DiPentima, Js. Syllabus The self-represented, incarcerated plaintiff brought this action against the defendants pursuant to federal law (42 U.S.C. § 1983), claiming violations of his federal and state constitutional rights. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to deportation parole or a deportation parole eligibility hearing pursuant to statute (§ 54-125d (c)) and, that under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the defendants had violated his rights to due process by failing to implement policies, procedures, and/or regulations that provided him with a deportation parole hearing and/or with eligibility. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that the defendants were protected by sovereign immunity and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Held that the judgment of the trial court was affirmed on the alternative ground that the plaintiff lacked standing; the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he had a specific, personal, or legal interest in deportation parole eligibility as the possibil- ity of deportation parole created by § 54-125d does not create a legal interest in parole eligibility, and the failure to exercise discretion to grant a deportation parole eligibility hearing is not within the zone of interests protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Argued September 10—officially released November 17, 2020 Procedural History Action to recover damages for, inter alia, the alleged deprivation of the plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New London, where the court, Hon. Joseph Q. Koletsky, judge trial referee, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed. Ian Wright, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff). Janelle R. Medeiros, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attorney gen- eral, and Clare E. Kindall, solicitor general, for the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals