The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 28, 2015, at which time the complainant and 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.).

     At the commencement of the hearing, the complainant requested a continuance for the reason that he did not have his documents with him.  The complainant’s request for a continuance was denied without prejudice.

     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. By letter of complaint filed May 4, 2015, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying his April 20, 2015 request for records.

     3. It is found that the complainant wrote a request to the respondents dated April 20, 2015 for certain records, but the respondents did not become aware of the request until sometime in June, 2015.

     4. It is found that the respondents offered all of the extant non-exempt records located at the inmate’s institution to the complainant a few days before the hearing in this matter, but the complainant refused delivery because the package offered to him did not include every record he had requested.

     5. During the hearing, the inmate refused to stop talking over the hearing officer.  The hearing officer informed the complainant that if the complainant did not comply with the hearing officer’s directives concerning the conduct of the hearing, the hearing officer would adjourn the hearing and recommend that the complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute.  The complainant refused to comply with the hearing officer’s directives, and the hearing was therefore adjourned.

     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 April 13, 2016.

__________________________
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:

Umar Shahid #103589
Robinson Correctional Institution
285 Shaker Road
Enfield, CT  06082

Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction;
and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction
c/o James Neil, Esq.
24 Wolcott Hill Road
Wethersfield, CT  06109

____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC/2015-310/FD/cac/4/13/2016