Filed: Dec. 01, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: No. 99-30516 -1- IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-30516 Summary Calendar JAMES JOSEPH FETTERLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BURL CAIN ET AL., Defendants, BURL CAIN; JOHN LEBLANC, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana - November 30, 1999 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Inmate James Joseph Fetterly appeals the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983 complain
Summary: No. 99-30516 -1- IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-30516 Summary Calendar JAMES JOSEPH FETTERLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BURL CAIN ET AL., Defendants, BURL CAIN; JOHN LEBLANC, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana - November 30, 1999 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Inmate James Joseph Fetterly appeals the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983 complaint..
More
No. 99-30516
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-30516
Summary Calendar
JAMES JOSEPH FETTERLY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BURL CAIN ET AL.,
Defendants,
BURL CAIN; JOHN LEBLANC,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
--------------------
November 30, 1999
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Inmate James Joseph Fetterly appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his § 1983 complaint. Fetterly, who works at a
chicken processing plant within his prison, appeals the denial of
his Fair Labor Standards Act claim and his constitutional claim
regarding working conditions at the plant.
The district court correctly concluded that Fetterly’s
complaints regarding his work, including crowded conditions,
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 99-30516
-2-
worn-out gloves and occasional failure to receive analgesics, did
not state a constitutional violation.
A plaintiff’s status as an inmate does not foreclose an
inquiry into FLSA coverage. Coverage has been granted, however,
where the prisoner works outside the prison under the supervision
of the private enterprise. Watson v. Graves,
909 F.2d 1549,
1553-55 (5th Cir. 1990). We have rejected FLSA entitlements
where the prisoner worked inside the prison supervised by prison
employees. See Alexander v. Sara, Inc.,
721 F.2d 149, 149-50 (5th
Cir. 1983). Here, Fetterly works inside the prison and can
demonstrate no employment relationship between him and the
private enterprise. He is thus not an employee for FLSA
purposes.
AFFIRMED.