Summary
finding that an inmate has neither a liberty nor a property interest in his prison job
Summary of this case from Harrington v. Paul Wells & Fed. Bureau of PrisonsOpinion
D.C. No. CV-00-07453-CAS. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. July 30, 2002
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding.
Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Murray A. Woodworth, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his action alleging a work-related injury, removal from his UNICOR job, and transfer to a lower-paying job in the prison. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and affirm.
We agree with the district court that 18 U.S.C. § 4126 is Woodworth's exclusive remedy for exposure to toxic chemicals while working at a prison job. See United States v. Demko, 385 U.S. 149, 152-53, 87 S.Ct. 382, 17 L.Ed.2d 258 (1966); Vander v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 268 F.3d 661, 663 (9th Cir.2001).
The district court properly dismissed Woodworth's claims concerning removal from his UNICOR job and transfer to a lower-paying position because he has neither a liberty nor a property interest in his prison job. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972).
AFFIRMED.