Newell v. Davis — freecase.ai

Full text

Robert NEWELL, Carey Sprouse, Gale Ollis, George McKee, Fredrick Conway, Robert Alston, Everette Shrader, Cecil Phelps, William Riddick, Joseph Riddick, Ernest Ferrell, Urban Frankin, Robert Taylor, Peter Land, Garland Lewis, Joseph Cephas, Richard Howe, Dewey Carpenter, Wallace Adams, Charlie Withers, George Kier, Fredrick Winiger, James Anderson, Alvin Honaker, John Heidinger, Wallace Maiden, William Davis, Ivan Marshall, Ray Fender, Larry Boone, Marvin McClain, Fayette Tillman, Bobby Price, Donald Fitchett, Junior Thacker v. Jack F. DAVIS, personally and in his official capacity as Director, Department of Corrections, and W. M. Riddle, personally and in his official capacity as Superintendent of the State Prison, and Robert M. DeLisle, personally and in his official capacity as Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent for the State Prison, and Byron C. Bowden, personally and in his official capacity as Director of the Wage Incentive Program for the Department of Corrections, and George Holmes, personally and in his official capacity as Director of Enterprises for the Department of Corrections, and Chuck Wolfe, personally and in his official capacity as Deputy Director for the Department of Corrections, and the Board of Directors for the Department of Corrections for the Commonwealth of Virginia, personally and in their official capacities Walter Fiddler, William Dudley, Mrs. John J. DeHart, Reverend John A. Baden, William S. Leach, William P. Kantl, Reverend Grady W. Powell, Bernard Leven, Mrs. Claudette Black McDaniel, and Commonwealth of Virginia

Opinions in this case

Opinion
Majority — Per curiam

PER CURIAM: By this § 1983, 42 U.S.C. action, the appellants, inmates of the Virginia State Penitentiary detailed to work in the hospital facility at the Penitentiary, seek both injunctive relief and money damages for alleged violation of their constitutional right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and the constitutional inhibition against involuntary servitude under the Thirteenth Amendment, because of the denial of participation by them in an incentive pay program adopted by the State Department of Corrections. As formulated by the Department of Corrections, the incentive pay program was intended to apply only to those work activities of the inmates which produced some measurable saving or production from which monies for the program could be realized. The activity in which the plaintiffs were engaged was found by the prison administration not to meet the criteria for participation in the program. The District Court, on a stipulation of facts, found, in a well-reasoned opinion, that such classification of the plaintiffs’ activity was not arbitrary or capricious.1 We affirm on the opinion of the District Court. The District Court did not address the claim under the Thirteenth Amendment, perhaps because it was so obviously without merit. See, Borror v. White (W.D.Va.1974) 377 F.Supp. 181, 183; McLaughlin v. Royster (E.D.Va.1972) 346 F.Supp. 297, 311. AFFIRMED. Footnotes [1] Newell v. Davis (E.D.Va.1976) 437 F.Supp. 1059.