*********************************************** 

The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was 

released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions 

and petitions for certification is the “officially released” 

date appearing in the opinion. 

All opinions are subject to modification and technical 

correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut 

Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of 

discrepancies between the advance release version of an 

opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut 

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 the 

opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and 

bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the 

Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not 

be reproduced and distributed without the express written 

permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. 

*********************************************** 
JOSE AYUSO v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 44171)

Prescott, Seeley and Sheldon, Js.

Syllabus

The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the respondent

Commissioner of Correction had provided him with inadequate treatment for certain medical conditions that constituted deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of the eighth amendment to the

United States constitution. The habeas court rendered judgment denying

the habeas petition and, thereafter, denied the petitioner certification to

appeal, and the petitioner appealed to this court. Held that the petitioner

failed to demonstrate that the habeas court abused its discretion by

denying his petition for certification to appeal, as the court expressly

credited the testimony of the respondent’s medical expert, who opined

to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the petitioner had

received adequate medical treatment, as well that of the petitioner’s

treating physician, in finding that the petitioner had received medically

appropriate treatment, and this court, on appeal, would not secondguess those credibility determinations.

Argued September 19—officially released October 25, 2022

Procedural History

Amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus,

brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district

of Tolland, where the petition was withdrawn in part;

thereafter, the case was tried to the court, Chaplin, J.;

judgment denying the petition; subsequently, the court

denied the petition for certification to appeal, and the

petitioner appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed.

Jose Ayuso, self-represented, the appellant (petitioner).

Lisamaria T. Proscino, assistant attorney general,

with whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attorney

general, Clare Kindall, solicitor general, and Robert S.

Dearington, former assistant attorney general, for the

appellee (respondent).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Jose Ayuso, appeals

following the denial of his petition for certification to

appeal from the judgment of the habeas court denying

his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus in

which he alleged deliberate indifference to his medical

needs in violation of the eighth amendment to the

United States constitution. The gravamen of the petitioner’s deliberate indifference claim is that the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, is providing inadequate medical treatment for the petitioner’s back pain

and for a lump on his inner thigh, including by not

providing the petitioner with a magnetic resonance

imaging (MRI) scan and back surgery.

In its memorandum of decision, the habeas court

expressly credited the testimony of the respondent’s

medical expert, who opined to a reasonable degree

of medical certainty that the petitioner has received

adequate medical treatment and that there was no medical indication for either surgery or an MRI scan. On the

basis of that expert testimony as well as that of the

petitioner’s treating physician, the habeas court ultimately found that ‘‘the petitioner received medically

appropriate treatment for [his leg] [and] for his back

pain.’’ The petitioner’s arguments on appeal are limited

to attacking the credibility determinations of the habeas

court, which, as we have repeatedly indicated, we will

not second-guess on appeal. See, e.g., Noze v. Commissioner of Correction, 177 Conn. App. 874, 887, 173 A.3d

525 (2017) (‘‘[i]t is simply not the role of this court on

appeal to second-guess credibility determinations made

by the habeas court’’); Jolley v. Commissioner of Correction, 98 Conn. App. 597, 599, 910 A.2d 982 (2006)

(‘‘[W]e must defer to the [trier of fact’s] assessment of

the credibility of the witnesses based on its firsthand

observation of their conduct, demeanor and attitude.

. . . The habeas judge, as the trier of facts, is the sole

arbiter of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to

be given to their testimony.’’ (Internal quotation marks

omitted.)), cert. denied, 282 Conn. 904, 920 A.2d 308

(2007). We conclude, on the basis of our review of the

record, the briefs, and the arguments of the parties, that

the petitioner has failed to demonstrate, in accordance

with Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 612, 646 A.2d

126 (1994), that the court abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.