under Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
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,