FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Joe Burgos Vega,

 
  Complainant  
  against   Docket #FIC 2010-736

Warden, State of Connecticut, Department

of Correction, Cheshire Correctional

Institution; and State of Connecticut,

Department of Correction,

 
  Respondents November 16, 2011
       

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 18, 2011, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The complainant, who is incarcerated, appeared via teleconference, pursuant to the January 2004 memorandum of understanding between the Commission and the Department of Correction.  See Docket No. CV 03-0826293, Anthony Sinchak v. FOIC et al, Superior Court, J.D. of Hartford at Hartford, Corrected Order dated January 27, 2004 (Sheldon, J.).

 

After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

1.         The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.         It is found that by letter dated October 13, 2010, the complainant requested copies of all records related to nine administrative remedies and all grievances filed with respect to one such remedy since the filing of #136-10-035.  The complainant requested that the respondents waive all copying costs, contending that he was indigent.

 

3.         It is found that, by letter dated October 14, 2010, the respondents acknowledged  receipt of the request described in paragraph 2, above, and informed the complainant that they would begin assembling the requested records.

 

4.         By letter dated November 12, 2010, postmarked November 22, 2010, and filed November 23, 2010, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to furnish all of the requested records. 

           

            5.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

 

“Public records or files” means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law or contract under section 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method. 

 

6.  Sections 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., state, respectively, in relevant parts:

 

Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212. 

 

 

Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.

 

            7.  It is concluded that the records described in paragraph 2, above, are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(1), 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

            8.  The respondents first contend that the complaint in this matter was not timely filed. 

 

            9.   Section 1-206(b)(1), G.S.,  provides:

 

Any person denied the right to inspect or copy records under section 1-210 or wrongfully denied the right to attend any meeting of a public agency or denied any other right conferred by the Freedom of Information Act may appeal therefrom to the Freedom of Information Commission, by filing a notice of appeal with said commission.  A notice of appeal shall be filed not later than thirty days after such denial, except in the case of an unnoticed or secret meeting, in which case the appeal shall be filed not later than thirty days after the person filing the appeal receives notice in fact that such meeting was held.   For purposes of this subsection, such notice of appeal shall be deemed to be filed on the date it is received by said commission or on the date it is postmarked, if received more than thirty days after the date of the denial from which such appeal is taken.

 

            10.  The complainant contends, both by affidavit, and in his testimony during the hearing in this matter, that he provided the complaint in this matter for mailing to a correctional officer in the early morning hours of November 12, 2010.  The respondents provided no evidence with respect to the issue of the mailing of the complaint in this matter. 

 

            11.  Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, it is concluded that the complaint in this matter was timely filed.  See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S. Ct. 2379 (1988) (inmate complaint deemed filed at point provided to prison officials for mailing).

 

            12.  At the hearing, the complainant contended that the only issue in this matter is the promptness of the respondent’s compliance with his request.  The complainant repeatedly testified that he no longer needs or wants the requested records, and that he hadn’t wanted them for several months, going back to late 2010. 

 

            13.  It is found that the complainant had compiled copies of the requested records at his previous place of incarceration, Garner Correctional Institution, and that such compilation of records had been lost in his transfer to Cheshire Correctional Institution.  It is further found that the originals of such records are housed at Garner, and that the respondent warden of Cheshire had to seek assistance from Garner in order to provide copies to the complainant. 

 

            14.  It is found that, by letter dated November 15, 2010, the FOI Liaison Officer at Garner informed the complainant that the requested copies were ready for dissemination.      

 

15.  Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, including the transfer of the complainant from one correctional facility to another, it is found that the respondents promptly complied with the complainant’s request.

 

16.  It is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act in this matter. 

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

1.      The complaint is dismissed. 

           

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 16, 2011.

 

__________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S., THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

 

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

 

Joe Burgos Vega #130135

Cheshire Correctional Institution

900 Highland Avenue

Cheshire, CT  06410

 

Warden, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction,

Cheshire Correctional Institution; and State of Connecticut,

Department of Correction

c/o Nancy Kase O’Brasky, Esq.

Department of Correction

24 Wolcott Hill Road

Wethersfield, CT  06109

 

And

 

Steven R. Strom, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT  06105

 

 

____________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

FIC/2010-736/FD/cac/11/16/2011