Order | Filed: August 03, 2026
| Entered: August 03, 2026
Emiabata v. Westby et al
Civil Rights: Other | Connecticut
Order on Motion to Dismiss Order on Motion for Order Order on Motion for Conference
ORDER granting 39 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 64 Motion for Status Conference. Plaintiff brought claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Connecticut Department of Labor (CTDOL) and the persons who served as Commissioner of the CTDOL during the relevant period, one in their individual capacity and one in their official capacity. His claims arise out of the agency's slow processing of his application for benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic, and its ultimate denial of the same. The court dismissed Plaintiff's original complaint, adopting the Recommended Ruling provided by the Honorable United States Magistrate Judge Thomas O. Farrish. ECF No. 25 . Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that largely incorporated the complaint that the court already had dismissed, which did not cure any of the deficiencies identified in the Recommended Ruling. Accordingly, the amended complaint also is dismissed, for the same reasons as before. In short, CTDOL is not a "person" within the meaning of that statute, and as a state agency, it is entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, so any claim against CTDOL is not cognizable. Bhatia v. Connecticut Dep't of Child. & Fams. (DCF), 317 F. App'x 51, 52 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing Will v. Mich. Dep't of Police, 491 U.S. 58, 7071 (1989) and Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984)). Similarly, any claims for monetary damages against a state employee in their official capacity is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985). And there is no allegation that either Commissioner had any direct involvement in the processing or denial of Plaintiff's application, so no claim has been stated against either in their individual capacity. Tangreti v. Bachman, 983 F.3d 609, 620 (2d Cir. 2020) (stating that in order to "hold a state official liable under [Section] 1983, a plaintiff must plead and prove the elements of the underlying constitutional violation directly against the official...."); see also Wright v. Smith, 21 F.3d 496, 501 (2d Cir. 1994) ("It is well settled in this Circuit that 'personal involvement of defendants in alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an award of damages under § 1983.'") (quoting Moffitt v. Town of Brookfield, 950 F.2d 880, 885 (2d Cir.1991)). Finally, should Plaintiff identify any CTDOL employee who was directly involved with the processing or denial of his application, or should he assert factual allegations against either Commissioner directly, he still could not state a cognizable claim against that individual, since that individual would be entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. Calderon v. Connecticut, No. CIV.A. 3:07CV1476, 2007 WL 3124717, at *3 (D. Conn. Oct. 24, 2007) ("In Connecticut, review of claims for unemployment benefits is a quasi-judicial process."). Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted, this time with prejudice, as it would be futile to permit any further amendment. Plaintiff's request for a status conference is denied as moot. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 8/3/26. (RW)