Filed: Dec. 21, 2012
Latest Update: Dec. 21, 2012
Summary: NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION WHIPPLE,, J. This matter is before us on appeal by petitioner, Terry Kraemer, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, and housed at Louisiana State Penitentiary, who seeks review of an adverse decision rendered in Administrative Remedy Procedure No. LSP-2010-3320, and affirmed by the district court, concerning his change in job assignment and reduction in wage rate. Finding no error, we affirm. Petitioner contends his wages
Summary: NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION WHIPPLE,, J. This matter is before us on appeal by petitioner, Terry Kraemer, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, and housed at Louisiana State Penitentiary, who seeks review of an adverse decision rendered in Administrative Remedy Procedure No. LSP-2010-3320, and affirmed by the district court, concerning his change in job assignment and reduction in wage rate. Finding no error, we affirm. Petitioner contends his wages w..
More
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
WHIPPLE,, J.
This matter is before us on appeal by petitioner, Terry Kraemer, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, and housed at Louisiana State Penitentiary, who seeks review of an adverse decision rendered in Administrative Remedy Procedure No. LSP-2010-3320, and affirmed by the district court, concerning his change in job assignment and reduction in wage rate. Finding no error, we affirm.
Petitioner contends his wages were reduced from $.20 per hour to $.08 per hour when he was reassigned from Paint Crew 3 as Maintenance/Painter/Construction 3 to a Kitchen Attendant. According to petitioner, he was reassigned back to the Paint Crew the next day and charged with performing the same duties, but was classified instead as a Janitor/Cleaner 1, where his wages remained at the reduced rate of $.08 per hour. Thus, in the proceedings below, and on appeal, petitioner seeks back due wages and reinstatement of his previous wages of $.20 per hour, despite the fact that the maximum wage of his current job classification is $.08 per hour. Petitioner contends that he was reassigned due to "institutional need" and that pursuant to DOC Reg. No. B-09-001, he should have retained his prior salary of $.20 per hour.
Department Regulation No. B-09-001(6)(B) provides in part:
In the event of a change in an offender's job assignment or custody status, the offender's rate of compensation shall automatically be adjusted to the lowest pay rate of the assigned job. If the change in job assignment is not for disciplinary reasons, but due to institutional needs, the offender shall be paid at the same rate as the previous job assignment and the rate of compensation shall not be automatically adjusted to the lowest pay rate of the new job assignment.
The Department denied petitioner administrative relief in his first and second responses, explaining:
After reviewing your account, the following has been determined. When you were placed back on the Main Prison Paint Crew on Sept. 24, 2010 by a classification board, your job was a Janitor Cleaner making $.08 an hour. Before your move to the Main Prison Kitchen you were a Painter/Construction/Maintenance 3. When you were made an Attendant, there is only one pay level $.04-$.08 and you were placed at the highest pay level for that job. When you returned to the Main Prison Paint Crew, you were made a Janitor Cleaner 1 and kept the same pay rate from the previous job as an Attendant in the Main Prison Kitchen. Your pay rate is correct.
After considering his petition for judicial review filed in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, the Commissioner issued a recommendation that the petition be denied, noting that DOC Reg. No. B-09-001 does not define "institutional need," and rejecting petitioner's argument that because his job transfer was not the result of a disciplinary matter, that it had to be due to an "institutional need," which would thereby require the Department to maintain his previous higher rate of pay. In detailed reasons, the Commissioner noted, "It would be unreasonable to conclude that every job in the prison is a necessary job or that every job change is necessitated by institutional need if it is not caused by disciplinary violations." The Commissioner recommended that the Department's decision be affirmed, finding that petitioner failed to show that his job assignment changes were based on the institution's need for another kitchen worker or for another janitor. The Commissioner concluded that because petitioner failed to show that the reassignments were due to the "need of the institution," the petitioner had provided no legal or factual basis for the relief he seeks.
After de novo review of the entire record, including the Commissioner's recommendation and petitioner's timely filed traversal, the district court rendered judgment on January 4, 2012, affirming the Department's decision and adopting the Commissioner's recommendations. Petitioner then filed the instant appeal.
It is well settled that prisoners have no constitutional right to be paid for work performed in prison. Rochon v. Louisiana State Penitentiary Inmate Account, 880 F.2d 845, 846 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1029, 110 S.Ct. 742, 107 L.Ed.2d 759 (1990). Any such compensation which is paid to prisoners is by grace of the state. Wendt v. Lynaugh, 841 F.2d 619, 621 (5th Cir. 1988). The state of Louisiana has provided for compensation for inmate labor, and such compensation shall be established by the secretary of the Department of Corrections. Richardson v. Rees, 618 So.2d 636, 640 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1993). See also LSA-R.S. 15:832(B) ("[i]nmates may be compensated, within the limits in grades fixed by the secretary of the department, for work performed") and LSA-R.S. 15:873(A) ("[t]he secretary of the Department ... may establish various rates of compensation as an incentive to inmates incarcerated in state correctional facilities... [t]he rates shall be according to the skill, industry, and nature of the work performed by the inmate and shall be no more than twenty cents per hour... in accordance with the rules established by the secretary of the department").
The law is clear that inmate compensation and compensation rates rest soundly within the discretion of the secretary of the Department. As such, we agree with the Commissioner that petitioner's argument herein, i.e., that he has a constitutional and/or statutory right to compensation and that his rate of compensation should be $.20 per hour even though he was transferred from one job paying that maximum rate to another that was limited to a maximum of $.08 per hour, lacks merit.
After thorough review of the record and relevant jurisprudence, we find no error of law or abuse of discretion by the district court in rejecting the petition for judicial review. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court in accordance with Uniform Rules — Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.1(B). All costs of this appeal are assessed against petitioner, Terry Kraemer.
AFFIRMED.
