Opinion
C.A. No. 02C-05-156 SCD
Submitted: September 11, 2002
Decided: September 17, 2002
ORDER
This 17th day of September 2002, upon consideration of the State's motion to dismiss the complaint and the plaintiff's response, it appears that:
(1) This is a complaint filed by an inmate at the Delaware Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware arising out of an incident, which occurred on or about May 16, 2002. The plaintiff alleges that he was suspended from his job in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. He further alleges negligence on defendants' part for failing to following the Standard Operating Procedures which govern inmate grievance procedures at the prison.
(2) There is settled law in Delaware regarding a prisoner's entitlement to employment. "Given the conditions of their confinement, ordinarily prisoners can claim no legitimate expectation of continued employment in their prison work assignments. One court has held that a prisoner's removal from his job assignment as an inmate nurse in a psychiatric ward is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Gardner v. Johnson, 429 F. Supp. 432 (D.C.Mich. 1977); see also Rather v. Conte, 849 P.2d 884 (Colo.App. 1992) (Prisoners who were dismissed from their prison work assignments failed to state a claim under section 1983); Jackson v. O'Leary, 689 F. Supp. 846 (N.D.Ill. 1988) (Illinois administrative regulation governing removal of prison inmates from work assignments did not vest inmate with protected liberty or property interest in his prison job so as to give rise to section 1983 action for reassignment of inmate to less desirable job, where regulation left decision to remove inmate from job assignment to unfettered discretion of prison officials.) Thus so long as the state statutes or regulations did not enlarge plaintiff's liberty or property interest, [an inmate] does not state a 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 claim for dismissal from a prison job assignment following a disciplinary "write-up." Abul-Akbar v. Depart. Of Corrections, Del. Ch., C.A. No. 1735-S, Allen, C. (Mar. 30, 1995) (Memo. Op.).
(3) The statute, which addresses inmate employment, is DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11 Del. C. § 6532 (1953). It provides the Department with the authority to establish compulsory programs of employment, but it does not create a protected liberty interest in such assignments. Inmates are not entitled to work.
(4) The same incident of May 16, 2002, was the basis for a lawsuit filed by another inmate. That lawsuit has been dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief under a theory of tort or civil rights liability. Spruance v. Klein, et. A., C.A. No. 02C-05-155, Babiarz, J. June 6, 02, reargument denied July 9, 02.
(5) This claim is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.