James v. Godinez et al

Filing 12

OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 4/27/2012. The merit review scheduled for May 21, 2012 is cancelled. This cause is set for further scheduling procedures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 on July 9, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. (or as soon as the Court can reach the case) before Judge Sue E. Myerscough. (MAS, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday, 27 April, 2012 03:58:34 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
JULIUS JAMES,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
SALVADOR A. GODINEZ, et al.,

Defendants,

11-CV-3389

OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated in Pontiac
Correctional Center, pursues claims arising from the prison’s refusal to
pay him $10 per month, like other similarly situated inmates are
allegedly paid. The case is before the Court for a merit review pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
LEGAL STANDARD
The Court is required by § 1915A to review a Complaint filed by a

1

prisoner against a governmental entity or officer and, through such
process, to identify cognizable claims, dismissing any claim that is
“frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.” A hearing is held if necessary to assist the Court in this review,
but, in this case, the Court concludes that no hearing is necessary. The
Complaint and its attachments are clear enough on their own for this
Court to perform its merit review of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
The review standard under § 1915A is the same as the notice
pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Zimmerman v. Tribble, 226 F.3d 568, 571 (7th Cir. 2000). To state a
claim, the allegations must set forth a “short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2). Factual allegations must give enough detail to give “‘fair notice
of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” EEOC v.
Concentra Health Serv., Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 2007), quoting
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)(add’l citation
omitted). The factual “allegations must plausibly suggest that the

2

plaintiff has a right to relief, raising that possibility above a ‘speculative
level.’” Id., quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court
to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged . . . . Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009), citing Bell Atlantic, 550
U.S. at 555-56. However, pro se pleadings are liberally construed when
applying this standard. Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 546 (7th Cir.
2009).
ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff’s allegations are taken from his Amended Complaint. (d/e
8). Plaintiff is an “unassigned” inmate in segregation. The Court
presumes that “unassigned” means not assigned to a job. Plaintiff
believes that his equal protection rights are being violated because the
unassigned inmates in the general population receive monthly state

3

payments, while Plaintiff does not.1
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has no constitutional right to a job or to wages. Vanskike
v. Peters, 974 F.2d 806, 809 (7th Cir. 1992)(prisoner has no
constitutional right to a job in prison, nor a constitutional right to
compensation for work performed); Wallace v. Robinson, 940 F.2d 243,
248 (7th Cir. 1991)(prisoner has no constitutional right to particular job
assignment); Garza v. Miller, 688 F.2d 480, 485 (7th Cir. 1982)(inmate
has no constitutional interest in educational or job opportunities).
However, that principle does not necessarily preclude an equal
protection claim. "In the prison context, the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment requires inmates to be treated equally, unless
unequal treatment bears a rational relation to a legitimate penal interest."
May v. Sheahan, 226 F.3d 876, 882 (7th Cir. 2000)(citations
omitted)(claim stated on allegations that detainees in hospital were
treated differently than detainees in jail); Williams v. Lane, 851 F.2d 867

730 ILCS 5/3-12-5 permits the IDOC to pay wages to inmates performing
work assignments or “participat[ing] in other programs of the Department.”
1

4

(7th Cir. 1988)(affirming district court’s ruling that disparate treatment
between general population and protective custody inmates violated
equal protection). Plaintiff implicitly contends that, with regard to state
pay, no legitimate penological reason exists to treat him differently from
unassigned inmates in general population. That is enough at this point
to state an equal protection claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) The merit review scheduled for May 21, 2012 is cancelled. The
clerk is directed to notify Plaintiff’s prison of the cancellation.
2) Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states an equal protection claim
based on unassigned inmates in general population receiving state pay
while unassigned inmates in segregation do not. Any additional claims
shall not be included in the case, except at the Court’s discretion on
motion by a party for good cause shown or pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15.
3) The Clerk is directed to send to each Defendant pursuant to this

5

District's internal procedures: 1) a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for
Waiver of Service; 2) a Waiver of Service; 3) a copy of the Complaint;
and, 4) this order.
4) If a Defendant fails to sign and return a Waiver of Service to the
Clerk within 30 days after the Waiver is sent, the Court will take
appropriate steps to effect formal service on that Defendant and will
require that Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2).
5) With respect to a Defendant who no longer works at the address
provided by Plaintiff, the entity for whom that Defendant worked while
at that address shall provide to the Clerk said Defendant's current work
address, or, if not known, said Defendant's forwarding address. This
information shall be used only for effecting service. Documentation of
forwarding addresses shall be retained only by the Clerk and shall not be
maintained in the public docket nor disclosed by the Clerk.
6) Defendants shall file an answer within the time prescribed by
Local Rule. A motion to dismiss is not an answer. The answer should

6

include all defenses appropriate under the Federal Rules. The answer and
subsequent pleadings shall be to the issues and claims stated in this
Opinion.
7) Plaintiff shall serve upon any Defendant who has been served
but who is not represented by counsel a copy of every filing submitted by
Plaintiff for consideration by the Court, and shall also file a certificate of
service stating the date on which the copy was mailed. Any paper
received by a District Judge or Magistrate Judge that has not been filed
with the Clerk or that fails to include a required certificate of service will
be stricken by the Court.
8) Once counsel has appeared for a Defendant, Plaintiff need not
send copies of his filings to that Defendant or to that Defendant's
counsel. Instead, the Clerk will file Plaintiff's document electronically
and send a notice of electronic filing to defense counsel. The notice of
electronic filing shall constitute service on Defendants pursuant to Local
Rule 5.3. If electronic service on Defendants is not available, Plaintiff
will be notified and instructed accordingly.

7

9) This cause is set for further scheduling procedures under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 16 on July 9, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. (or as soon as the Court can
reach the case) before U. S. District Judge Sue E. Myerscough. Plaintiff
shall appear by video conference. Defense counsel shall appear in person.
The Clerk is directed to give Plaintiff's place of confinement notice of the
date and time of the conference, and to issue the appropriate process to
secure the Plaintiff's presence at the conference.
10) Counsel for Defendants is hereby granted leave to depose
Plaintiff at his place of confinement. Counsel for Defendants shall
arrange the time for the depositions.
11) Plaintiff shall immediately notify the Court of any change in
his mailing address and telephone number. Plaintiff's failure to notify the
Court of a change in mailing address or phone number will result in
dismissal of this lawsuit, with prejudice.
12) The Clerk is to notify the parties of their option to consent to
disposition of this case before a United States Magistrate Judge by
providing Plaintiff with a magistrate consent form. Upon receipt of a

8

signed consent from Plaintiff, the Clerk shall forward the consent to
Defendants for consideration.
ENTERED:

April 27, 2012

FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9