Connecticut Property Owner Sues City of Waterbury Over Electrical Inspection and 71-Day Power Shutoff
The owner of a multifamily residential property in Waterbury has filed a federal civil rights and negligence lawsuit against the City of Waterbury, multiple city inspectors, and supervisory officials, alleging unconstitutional inspections and an unjustified disconnection of electrical service that lasted more than two months.
The plaintiff, Miriam del Socorro Martinez Quintero, owns and resides in the building along with tenants who rent from her. She filed the suit in US District Court for the District of Connecticut pro se. According to the complaint, she hired a licensed solar and electrical contractor in March 2025 to perform authorized electrical upgrades at the property. A city electrical inspector allegedly refused to approve the work and, according to the plaintiff, did not issue any written inspection report, correction notice, or instructions identifying deficiencies.
On May 22, 2025, the electrical inspector returned to the property to conduct another inspection. The plaintiff alleges that the inspection was legally limited to the basement, where the electrical panels were located, and the exterior of the building, where the meters were installed. During that inspection, the electrical inspector allegedly contacted a Waterbury Fire Department inspector, who joined the inspection even though he was not originally scheduled to participate.
The plaintiff alleges that the inspectors entered her private residence without a warrant, without informed consent, and without any emergency circumstances. She further alleges that she allowed access to rental units only under coercion and without being advised of her constitutional rights. According to the complaint, the fire inspector then contacted the electric utility and reported that there was a fire at the property, which resulted in the immediate disconnection of electrical service to the entire building.
The complaint asserts that no fire, imminent danger, or actual electrical hazard existed at the time of the report and that, had such a condition existed, the electrical inspector would have permitted corrective work during the earlier inspection. Electrical service allegedly remained disconnected for 71 days, until July 31, 2025. During that period, the plaintiff claims she complied with all requirements imposed by the fire department, even though the report she received did not identify any specific electrical issues. She ultimately hired a licensed professional, at her own expense, to replace electrical panels and a meter socket before service was restored .
The plaintiff alleges that as a result of the prolonged power outage she suffered unsafe living conditions, loss of rental income, spoiled food, reliance on generators, emotional distress, reputational harm, and significant financial hardship. She also alleges that she filed a notice of claim with the City of Waterbury, which was denied before she initiated suit.
The lawsuit names the two inspectors involved in the inspection, as well as their supervisors: the supervisor of the city’s electrical inspections department and the Fire Marshal/Fire Chief. The plaintiff alleges that the supervisory officials knew or should have known of the allegedly unlawful inspection practices, lack of written reports, and prolonged electrical disconnection, and failed to intervene or correct the situation. The City of Waterbury is also named as a defendant.
The complaint asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment, procedural due process, and substantive due process, along with state-law negligence claims. The plaintiff alleges that city officials unlawfully entered and inspected her home, caused essential electrical service to be disconnected without notice or a hearing, and acted in an arbitrary and disproportionate manner. She also alleges that the defendants breached duties imposed by Connecticut law and accepted municipal inspection standards.
In a ruling issued February 12, 2026, a U.S. Magistrate Judge granted the plaintiff permission to proceed in forma pauperis (without paying filing fees due to indigency) and conducted an initial review of the complaint. The court recommended that certain claims be dismissed, including all § 1983 claims against the City of Waterbury and against supervisory officials in their individual capacities, while allowing other claims—including constitutional claims against the two inspectors in their individual capacities and state-law negligence claims—to proceed.
Here is a copy of the decision:
