From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Newel v. Davis

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Oct 13, 1977
563 F.2d 123 (4th Cir. 1977)

Summary

noting that a claim that the failure to include inmates who worked in a prison hospital facility in an incentive pay program violated the Thirteenth Amendment was “obviously without merit”

Summary of this case from Jones v. Richardson

Opinion

No. 76-1442.

Argued May 3, 1977.

Decided October 13, 1977.

Gregory L. Murphy, Alexandria, Va. (Murphy, McGettigan, McNally West, Alexandria, Va., on brief), for appellants.

Patrick A. O'Hare, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va. (Anthony F. Troy, Atty. Gen. of Virginia, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Before LEONARD P. MOORE, Senior Circuit Judge, Second Circuit, sitting by designation, and RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.


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. We affirm on the opinion of the District Court.

Newell v. Davis (E.D.Va. 1976) 437 F. Supp. 1059.

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.


Summaries of

Newel v. Davis

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Oct 13, 1977
563 F.2d 123 (4th Cir. 1977)

noting that a claim that the failure to include inmates who worked in a prison hospital facility in an incentive pay program violated the Thirteenth Amendment was “obviously without merit”

Summary of this case from Jones v. Richardson

noting that a claim that the failure to include inmates who worked in a prison hospital facility in an incentive pay program violated the Thirteenth Amendment was "obviously without merit"

Summary of this case from Baker v. Trinity Servs. Grp.

stating claim by prisoner under the Thirteenth Amendment was "obviously without merit"

Summary of this case from Moore v. Solomon

characterizing such a claim as "obviously without merit"

Summary of this case from Harden v. Bodiford
Case details for

Newel v. Davis

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT NEWELL, CAREY SPROUSE, GALE OLLIS, GEORGE McKEE, FREDRICK CONWAY…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Oct 13, 1977

Citations

563 F.2d 123 (4th Cir. 1977)

Citing Cases

Versatile v. Kelly

Nor does the failure to pay an inmate for labor violate the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of slavery.…

Moore v. Solomon

See Qawiyy v. Johnson, No. 7:13-cv-351, 2013 WL 4202653, at *2 (W.D. Va. Aug. 15, 2013) ("Plaintiff first…