Bogle-Assegai v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities

331 F. App'x 70 (2d Cir. 2009) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · June 19, 2009

Summary

The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of Femi Bogle-Assegai’s civil rights claims against the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities and an assistant attorney general. It held that the assistant attorney general was protected by immunity for statements made while defending the state, and that sovereign immunity barred damages claims against the state agency. The court also rejected claims for declaratory and injunctive relief because the complaint did not request specific such relief.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Writing for the Court
Leval; Parker; Pooler
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
June 19, 2009
Procedural posture
Femi Bogle-Assegai appealed from a district court judgment dismissing her civil rights complaint against the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities and Connecticut Assistant Attorney General Joseph A. Jordano.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Parties
Femi Bogle-Assegai v. Connecticut Commission on Human Rights, Joseph A. Jordano
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

civil rightssovereign immunityequitable reliefremediesappellate procedure

Practice areas

civil rightsconstitutional lawsovereign immunityremediesappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the claims against Assistant Attorney General Jordano were barred by immunity for conduct undertaken in defending the state against civil liability.
  2. Whether sovereign immunity barred Bogle-Assegai's damages claims against the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities.
  3. Whether Bogle-Assegai could pursue declaratory or injunctive relief when the complaint did not request any specific declaratory or injunctive remedy.

Holdings

  1. Claims against Jordano were properly dismissed because the alleged misstatements were made in the course of defending the state against civil liability, and the applicable immunity attaches to the function performed rather than the manner of performance.
  2. Bogle-Assegai could not maintain damages claims against the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities because she failed to demonstrate either a state waiver of sovereign immunity or effective congressional abrogation.
  3. Bogle-Assegai could not proceed on claims for declaratory or injunctive relief because the complaint did not actually request any specific declaratory or injunctive relief.

Key quotations

The immunity attaches to his function, not to the manner in which he performed it.
This argument fails because although Bogle-Assegai stated in the jurisdictional section of her complaint that her action was for declaratory and injunctive relief, she did not actually request any specific declaratory or injunctive relief. (72)

Factual background

Bogle-Assegai brought civil rights claims against the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities and Assistant Attorney General Joseph A. Jordano. She alleged that Jordano made misstatements while defending the state against civil liability. Although the complaint described the action as seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in its jurisdictional section, it did not request any specific such relief.

Procedural history

The district court dismissed Bogle-Assegai's civil rights claims. The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that Jordano was immune for statements made in defending the state against civil liability, that sovereign immunity barred damages claims against the state agency absent waiver or congressional abrogation, and that the complaint did not actually request specific declaratory or injunctive relief.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…