Connecticut Inmate Serving Life Sentence Wins $130K Verdict Over Prison Conditions

A Connecticut man serving a life sentence for murder has been awarded more than $130,000 after a federal jury found that prison officials violated his constitutional rights while he was housed at the now-closed Northern Correctional Institution.

Baltas sued former state Corrections Commissioner Angel Quiros and other prison officials over conditions he says he endured at the maximum-security facility in Somers between 2016 and 2017.

The jury found that officials violated Baltas’s Eighth Amendment rights by subjecting him to inhumane conditions, including long periods of confinement in his cell, inadequate food, and denial of recreation time. The verdict resulted in a $130,030 award.

Baltas has been in custody since his arrest in 2006. He was convicted in 2010 after the fatal stabbing of Michael Laverty, the father of his then-girlfriend. Laverty’s wife, Linda, and their son, Chris, were also stabbed during the attack. Baltas was initially convicted of murder, assault, burglary, and kidnapping.

On appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court later overturned the burglary and kidnapping convictions and ordered a new trial on those charges, but the state did not retry him. His murder and assault convictions remained in place.

The lawsuit centered on the conditions Baltas says he faced while housed at Northern Correctional Institution. Under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, people in prison are protected from “cruel and unusual punishmentEighth Amendment and Cruel and Unusual PunishmentThe Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments. Its Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause limits the types and severity of punishment the government may impose, including conditions of confinement and methods of execution.Read more →.” The protection can apply to prison conditions that deprive people of basic human needs, including adequate food, shelter, medical care, sanitation, and reasonable safety.

To prove an unconstitutional prison-condition claim, an incarcerated person generally must show that the conditions created a serious risk to health or safety and that prison officials knew about the risk but failed to address it. Courts often describe that standard as “deliberate indifference.”

Baltas argued that prison officials crossed that line by keeping him in solitary-like confinement for nearly 23 hours a day. His legal team, which represented him pro bono, argued that the prison failed to provide “nutritionally adequate” meals, denied him recreation time, and deprived him of meaningful outside-cell time and stimulation.

Court filings state that Baltas claimed those conditions caused serious harm while he was housed at Northern Correctional Institution.

The facility, once Connecticut’s highest-security prison, was shut down in 2021 after Gov. Ned Lamont cited a major decline in the state’s prison population.

In reaching its verdict, the jury found that the conditions at the facility posed a substantial risk of harm and that prison officials violated Baltas’s constitutional rights. The award included nearly $47,000 in damages against Quiros and nearly $42,000 against former warden William Mulligan.

Connecticut law can affect how civil awards are handled when the person receiving the money is incarcerated. In some cases, the state may seek reimbursement for incarceration costs from certain lawsuit proceeds, though the law includes exemptions and priority payments for expenses such as attorney’s fees, litigation costs, child support, restitution, and crime-victim judgments.

Baltas remains incarcerated. He is also facing separate pending charges involving alleged assaults on correction officers, including an attempted murder charge connected to a 2023 incident at Garner Correctional Institution in Newtown.