The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kirkland, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff is a prisoner confined in the Stateville branch of
the Illinois State Penitentiary, Joliet, Illinois. He seeks
relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 for
deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured by the
United States Constitution.
Defendants urge that the complaint does not state a claim upon
which relief may be granted by a federal court.
Because plaintiff has filed pro se, the complaint must be read
generously in his favor. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct.
594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). So read, the complaint alleges that
defendant prison officials denied plaintiff's request to be
allowed to work on the honor farm on the ground that he was not
within three years of eligibility for parole. The complaint
further alleges that defendants permitted other inmates, who had
more than three years to serve before becoming eligible for
parole, to work on the honor farm. The alleged damage to
plaintiff is possible loss of a scholarship to attend Lewis
Generously read, the complaint seeks to invoke the Equal
Protection Clause as a basis for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the complaint
must plead facts which, if proved, would amount to a significant
violation of a constitutional right by a person acting under
color of state law. Basista v. Weir, 340 F.2d 74 (3d Cir. 1965).
The complaint here does not plead facts amounting to a
significant violation of a constitutional right. It alleges
conduct by state prison officials relating to internal prison
regulations. As stated in Walker v. Pate, 356 F.2d 502 (7th Cir.
"It is well established law in this Circuit, that
except under exceptional circumstances, internal
matters such as rules and regulations in state
prisons, are the sole concern of the states, and that
federal courts will not inquire concerning them."
(356 F.2d at 504.)
Plaintiff has not alleged any "exceptional circumstances" under
which the Walker rule would not apply. In United States ex rel.
Miller v. Twomey, 479 F.2d 701 (7th Cir. 1973), some of these
exceptional circumstances were spelled out; placement of inmates
on an honor farm was not among them. The Miller case also
reaffirmed the holding in Walker, stating:
"This does not mean, however, that every decision by
prison officials should be subject to judicial review
or that the courts rather than experienced
administrators should write prison regulations.
Morrissey [v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33
L.Ed.2d 484] reminds us that due process is a
flexible concept which takes account of the
importance of the interests at stake; thus, it is
abundantly clear that a myriad of problems of prison
administration must remain beyond the scope of proper
judicial concern. Only significant deprivations of
liberty raise constitutional issues under Morrissey."
(Footnotes omitted. 479 F.2d at 713.)
Denial of plaintiff's request for placement on the honor farm
is not such a significant deprivation of liberty, and does not
raise a constitutional issue within the scope of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint is granted. Order to
be entered in accordance with this opinion.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw ...