As of September 5, 2022, Freedom of Information Commission meetings and contested case hearings will resume being conducted in person. All parties and witnesses must appear in person for their contested case hearings and Commission meetings. Please access this link or contact the Commission for further information.

Final Decision FIC2015-049
In the Matter of a Complaint by
FINAL DECISION
Mikey Pineda,
     Complainant
     against
Docket #FIC 2015-049
Commissioner, State of Connecticut,
Department of Correction; and
State of Connecticut, Department of Correction,
     Respondents
December 16, 2015

     By letter dated March 5, 2015, the Commission advised the complainant that, unless he responded in writing, it would not take further action on his complaint because he had not alleged a violation of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).  By letters dated March 10 and April 13, 2015, the complainant stated that he wished to pursue his complaint before the Commission.
     Accordingly, the above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 18, 2015, 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, Superior Court, J.D. of Hartford at Hartford, Corrected Order dated January 27, 2004 (Sheldon, J.). 
     At the hearing, the complainant testified that his written requests that were the basis of his complaint were for certain videotapes at a correctional facility to be preserved and not requests to receive copies of the videotapes.  The testimony presented by the respondents was that the relevant videotapes have been preserved as requested.  The respondents further stated that they would send the complainant a letter confirming the preservation of the relevant videotapes.  The complainant testified that prior to the hearing, he had not been informed that the relevant videotapes had been preserved, but now that he had been so informed, he wished to withdraw his complaint.
     The Commission recommends the following order on the basis of the record:
     1.  Based on the withdrawal of the complaint, the case is hereby dismissed.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 16, 2015.

_______________________
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:
Mikey Pineda
Carl Robinson Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 1400
Enfield, CT  06083-1400
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/2015-049/FD/cac/12/16/2015