Versatile v. Kelly
Decision Date | 07 August 2013 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:12CV332-HEH |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Parties | LORD VERSATILE, Plaintiff, v. LORETTA KELLY, et al., Defendants. |
( § 1983 Action)
Lord Versatile, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil rights action. The matter is before the Court for evaluation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
The Magistrate Judge made the following findings and recommendations:
Preliminary Review
Summary of Allegations
Versatile, an inmate currently confined in Nottaway Correctional Center, alleges that he worked as a housekeeper from December 27, 2010 until August 14, 2011, while confined at Sussex I State Prison. (Compl. 7.)1 Versatile alleges that he "was not paid or compensated for any of the hours he worked for approximately eight (8) months."2 (Id.)3 Versatile claims he "was threatened onseveral occasion[s] by housing unit staff that if he refused to work he would be charged for failure to perform work assignment." (Id.) Versatile contends that the deprivation of pay for work performed violates "state created rights under the Virginia constitution," due process,4 the Eighth Amendment5 prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and amounts to slavery under the Thirteenth Amendment.6 (Id. at 4.) Versatile names former Warden, Loretta Kelly, former Regional Director, A. David Robinson, and former Unit Manager T. Fowlkes as defendants. Versatile demands "compensatory damages of 25% interest for each month he worked along with the total pay he would have earned for each month from December 27, 2010 to August 14, 2011," and $500 in punitive damages from each defendant. (Id. at 11.)
Analysis
In order to state a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived him or her of a constitutional right or of a right conferred by a law of the United States. See Dowe v. Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, 145 F.3d 653, 658 (4th Cir. 1998).
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments
A state prisoner possesses no constitutional right to be paid for his labor. Anderson v. Morgan, No. 89-6737, 1990 WL 29173, at *1 (4th Cir. Mar. 6, 1990) (citing Manning v. Lockhart, 623 F.2d 536, 538 (8th Cir. 1980)); Sigler v. Lowrie, 404 F.2d 659, 661 (8th Cir. 1968) (citations omitted); Borror v. White, 377 F.Supp. 181, 183 (W.D. Va. 1974) (citations omitted). Any compensation provided '"is by the grace of the state.'" Taylor v. Robinson, No. 02-CV-510, 2003 WL 23314150, at *4 (E.D. Va. Apr. 4, 2003) (quoting Hrbek v. Farrier, 787 F.2d 415, 416 (8th Cir. 1986)); see Borror, 377 F. Supp. at 183. Thus, Versatile has no property interest in wages earned under the Due Process Clause. Washlefske v. Winston, 234 F.3d 179, 184-85 (4th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); Skipper v. SC. Dep't Corr., No. 4:05-3024-HFF-TER, 2008 WL 608575, at *5 (D.S.C. Mar. 4, 2008) (citations omitted). Nor does the failure to pay an inmate for labor violate the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of slavery. See Mikeska v. Collins, 900 F.2d 833, 837 (5th Cir. 1990);7Newell v. Davis, 563 F.2d 123, 124 (4th Cir. 1977) (citing Borror, 377 F. Supp. at 183; McLaughlin v. Royster, 346 F. Supp. 297, 311 (E.D. Va. 1972)). Any entitlement to pay for services rendered by Versatile "derive[s] from the laws of Virginia, and is not a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Borror, 377 F. Supp. at 183. Thus, an institution may constitutionally force a validly convicted inmate to perform work, with or without pay, so long as the work assignment amounts to no cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. See McLaughlin, 346 F. Supp. at 311 (citing Holt v. Sarver, 309 F. Supp. 362 (E.D. Ark. 1970)). Versatile's claim that he failed to receive compensation for his work as a housekeeper while housed in Sussex I states no actionable federal constitutional claim. Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Versatile's claims alleging a violation of his rights under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Eighth Amendment and State Law Claim
(April 26, 2013 Report and Recommendation.) The Court advised Versatile that he could file objections or an amended complaint within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the Report and Recommendation. Versatile filed an amended complaint. As explained below, the Magistrate Judge's analysis applies with equal force to the claims previously raised. Moreover, Versatile's new equal protection claim lacks merit.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial