Pinzon v. Department of Corrections Acting Warden
Filing
11
MERIT REVIEW OPINION (See Written Opinion): IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This case is therefore closed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter a judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 5/26/2016. (VM, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 26 May, 2016 08:56:00 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
NORBERT VINCENT PINZON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
ACTING WARDEN,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
16-CV-2088
MERIT REVIEW OPINION
Sue E. Myerscough, U.S. District Judge.
This cause is before the Court for merit review of the pro se
Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In reviewing
the Complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as true,
liberally construing them in Plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729
F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2103). However, conclusory statements and
labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be provided to "'state a
claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'" Alexander v. U.S., 721
F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(quoted cite omitted).
ALLEGATIONS
Page 1 of 4
The pro se Plaintiff, a state prisoner, claims his constitutional
rights were violated at Danville Correctional Center. Plaintiff’s
complaint does not include a list of Defendants, but he has
identified the “Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) Acting
Warden” and the “Trust Fund Supervisor” in the caption of his
complaint.[1] Plaintiff says when he entered IDOC, he was told he
would receive $10.00 a month in state pay. However, Plaintiff says
his last five “prisoner accounting forms have been short.” (Comp., p.
1). For instance, Plaintiff says he received only $5.78 in pay on
March 19, 2016. (Comp., p. 1.) The Plaintiff claims the Defendants’
actions violate his Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment rights.
ANALYSIS
The Plaintiff has failed to articulate a violation of his
constitutional rights based on the allegations in his complaint.
“Plaintiff has no right based on federal law to even have a job” while
incarcerated “much less a right to be paid what he perceives to be a
fair wage.” Young v. Monahan, 2007 WL 2700011 at *1 (C.D.Ill.
June 19, 2007); see also Beatty v. DeBruyn, 1996 WL 80168, at *1
(7th Cir. Feb. 21,1996)(“Case law makes clear that prisoners have
no right to a prison job, and no constitutional right to wages for
Page 2 of 4
work performed while incarcerated.”) Beatty v. DeBruyn, 1996 WL
80168, at *1 (7th Cir. Feb. 21,1996); Vanskike v. Peters, 974 F.2d
806, 809 (7th Cir.1992) (“there is no Constitutional right to
compensation for [prison] work”). Therefore, the Court must
dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1)
Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a
claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
This case is therefore closed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to
enter a judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
2)
This dismissal shall count as one of the Plaintiff's three
allotted “strikes” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). The Clerk
is directed to record Plaintiff’s strike in the three-strikes log.
3)
If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he must file a
notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the entry of
judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). A motion for leave to appeal in
forma pauperis MUST set forth the issues Plaintiff plans to present
on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If Plaintiff does choose
to appeal, he will be liable for the $505 appellate filing fee
irrespective of the outcome of the appeal.
Page 3 of 4
ENTERED: May 26, 2016
FOR THE COURT:
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 4 of 4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?