Stanley v. Scott

************************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the
beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be
published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it
is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the
beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-
ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-
cially released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event
of discrepancies between the advance release version of
an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecti-
cut 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
an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Jour-
nal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or
Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the
Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may
not be reproduced or distributed without the express
written permission of the Commission on Official Legal
Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
************************************************
Page 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

2 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Stanley v. Scott

STEVEN K. STANLEY v. ADAM B. SCOTT ET AL.
(AC 47829)
Moll, Seeley and Wilson, Js.

Syllabus

The plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s judgment dismissing his civil
action against the defendants, assistant state’s attorneys, who had success-
fully prosecuted him. In the underlying action, the plaintiff had sought
damages from the defendants related to their use of his cell phone records
in connection with his criminal trial. Held:

This court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, as the deficiencies in the
plaintiff’s briefs left this court unable to undertake any appellate review of
any claim.

Argued April 23—officially released July 15, 2025

Procedural History

Action to recover damages for the defendants’ alleged
violation of the plaintiff’s federal constitutional privacy
rights, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial
district of Tolland where the court, Macierowski, J.,
granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and rendered
judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed to
this court. Affirmed.

Steven K. Stanley, self-represented, the appellant
(plaintiff).
Stephen R. Finucane, assistant attorney general, with
whom were Isabel Wagner, legal intern, and, on the
brief, William Tong, attorney general, for the appellees
(defendants).

Opinion

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Steven K. Stanley,
appeals following the judgment of the trial court dis-
missing his civil action against the defendants, Adam
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 1

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 3
Stanley v. Scott

B. Scott and Anthony Spinella.1 The defendants, in their
capacities as assistant state’s attorneys, were involved
in a successful prosecution of the plaintiff, which
resulted in his conviction of multiple crimes and impris-
onment.2 Thereafter, in the underlying action, the plain-
tiff sought damages from the defendants related to their
use of his cell phone records as evidence in connection
with his criminal trial.3
The plaintiff’s principal appellate brief and his reply
brief are incomprehensible; the plaintiff neither identi-
fies a cogent claim of error nor adequately analyzes
such a claim.4 This appeal is governed by our analysis
in another appeal that was brought by the plaintiff,
Stanley v. Commissioner of Correction, 233 Conn. App.
759, , A.3d (2025), which we resolve today.
The deficiencies in the plaintiff’s briefs leave us unable
to undertake appellate review of any claim and, thus,
we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The judgment is affirmed.
1
The plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated, appeared as a self-repre-
sented litigant before the trial court in the underlying action and he appears
before this court as a self-represented litigant.
2
See State v. Stanley, 161 Conn. App. 10, 125 A.3d 1078 (2015), cert.
denied, 320 Conn. 918, 131 A.3d 1154 (2016).
3
The trial court concluded that the plaintiff’s action was brought pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court stated that the plaintiff, who was seeking
damages of fifty million dollars, had alleged ‘‘that the defendants violated
his constitutional privacy rights under the fourth and fourteenth amend-
ments [to] the [United States] constitution by using his personal cell phone
records against him in the course of their prosecution and at trial.’’ Following
a hearing, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the action
with prejudice. The court concluded that the action was (1) barred by the
doctrine of res judicata and (2) frivolous pursuant to Practice Book § 1-25.
4
We note that, beyond any attempt made by the plaintiff to challenge the
legal grounds on which the court relied in dismissing his civil action, he baldly
asserts in his principal appellate brief that the trial judge, Macierowski, J.,
was ‘‘bias[ed].’’ The record reflects that the plaintiff moved to disqualify
Judge Macierowski, who denied the motion to disqualify on its merits.
Nevertheless, the plaintiff has not addressed the merits of that ruling in
this appeal.

************************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the
beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be
published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it
is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the
beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-
ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-
cially released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event
of discrepancies between the advance release version of
an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecti-
cut 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
an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Jour-
nal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or
Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the
Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may
not be reproduced or distributed without the express
written permission of the Commission on Official Legal
Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
************************************************
Page 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

2 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Stanley v. Scott

STEVEN K. STANLEY v. ADAM B. SCOTT ET AL.
(AC 47829)
Moll, Seeley and Wilson, Js.

Syllabus

The plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s judgment dismissing his civil
action against the defendants, assistant state’s attorneys, who had success-
fully prosecuted him. In the underlying action, the plaintiff had sought
damages from the defendants related to their use of his cell phone records
in connection with his criminal trial. Held:

This court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, as the deficiencies in the
plaintiff’s briefs left this court unable to undertake any appellate review of
any claim.

Argued April 23—officially released July 15, 2025

Procedural History

Action to recover damages for the defendants’ alleged
violation of the plaintiff’s federal constitutional privacy
rights, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial
district of Tolland, where the court, Macierowski, J.,
granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and rendered
judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed to
this court. Affirmed.

Steven K. Stanley, self-represented, the appellant
(plaintiff).
Stephen R. Finucane, assistant attorney general, with
whom were Isabel Wagner, legal intern, and, on the
brief, William Tong, attorney general, for the appellees
(defendants).

Opinion

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Steven K. Stanley,
appeals following the judgment of the trial court dis-
missing his civil action against the defendants, Adam
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 1

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 3
Stanley v. Scott

B. Scott and Anthony Spinella.1 The defendants, in their
capacities as assistant state’s attorneys, were involved
in a successful prosecution of the plaintiff, which
resulted in his conviction of multiple crimes and impris-
onment.2 Thereafter, in the underlying action, the plain-
tiff sought damages from the defendants related to their
use of his cell phone records as evidence in connection
with his criminal trial.3
The plaintiff’s principal appellate brief and his reply
brief are incomprehensible; the plaintiff neither identi-
fies a cogent claim of error nor adequately analyzes
such a claim.4 This appeal is governed by our analysis
in another appeal that was brought by the plaintiff,
Stanley v. Commissioner of Correction, 233 Conn. App.
759, , A.3d (2025), which we resolve today.
The deficiencies in the plaintiff’s briefs leave us unable
to undertake appellate review of any claim and, thus,
we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The judgment is affirmed.
1
The plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated, appeared as a self-repre-
sented litigant before the trial court in the underlying action and he appears
before this court as a self-represented litigant.
2
See State v. Stanley, 161 Conn. App. 10, 125 A.3d 1078 (2015), cert.
denied, 320 Conn. 918, 131 A.3d 1154 (2016).
3
The trial court concluded that the plaintiff’s action was brought pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court stated that the plaintiff, who was seeking
damages of fifty million dollars, had alleged ‘‘that the defendants violated
his constitutional privacy rights under the fourth and fourteenth amend-
ments [to] the [United States] constitution by using his personal cell phone
records against him in the course of their prosecution and at trial.’’ Following
a hearing, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the action
with prejudice. The court concluded that the action was (1) barred by the
doctrine of res judicata and (2) frivolous pursuant to Practice Book § 1-25.
4
We note that, beyond any attempt made by the plaintiff to challenge the
legal grounds on which the court relied in dismissing his civil action, he baldly
asserts in his principal appellate brief that the trial judge, Macierowski, J.,
was ‘‘bias[ed].’’ The record reflects that the plaintiff moved to disqualify
Judge Macierowski, who denied the motion to disqualify on its merits.
Nevertheless, the plaintiff has not addressed the merits of that ruling in
this appeal.