JACOBS v. JULIAN
2:17-cv-00129
S.D. Ind.Apr 13, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Nathan E. Jacobs, a federal inmate at USP Terre Haute, sues three prison officials (Assistant Warden S. Julian, Chaplain Bonham, Unit Manager D. Sweeney) alleging they denied him participation in Bureau of Prisons programs.
- Jacobs asserts violations of multiple constitutional amendments (First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Fourteenth) and seeks the arrest of the defendants as damages.
- The complaint was screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim, frivolity, and immunity issues.
- The court construes the pleading as bringing a Bivens constitutional tort claim against individual federal officers.
- The court finds Jacobs had no protected due-process or other federal right to participate in the described prison programs and that denial of such programs does not create a constitutional liberty interest.
- The court also explains a civil suit cannot be used to compel criminal prosecution or to obtain arrest warrants; only the government can initiate criminal charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of prison program participation violated constitutional rights | Jacobs alleges denials violated multiple amendments and his rights to participate | Defendants argue inmates have no federal right to program participation | Court: No federal right; claim fails |
| Proper constitutional theory | Jacobs pleads various amendments; court treats as Fourteenth Amendment due process claim | Defendants maintain no due process entitlement to programs | Court: Only plausible claim is due process, which is not implicated |
| Remedy sought (request for arrests) | Jacobs seeks arrest of defendants as damages/remedy | Defendants/ Court note private litigant cannot compel criminal prosecution | Court: Civil suit cannot obtain arrests; relief unavailable |
| Procedural disposition under §1915A | Jacobs seeks relief and was granted opportunity to show cause | Defendants moved to dismiss | Court: Denied motion to dismiss; gave Jacobs until May 15, 2017 to show cause/clarify before judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Alvarado v. Litscher, 267 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2001) (discusses screening under §1915A and standards for dismissal)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se complaints held to less stringent standards; Rule 8 notice pleading)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaints must plead sufficient factual matter to state plausible claim)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (authorizes constitutional tort suits against federal officers)
- Higgason v. Farley, 83 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 1996) (denial of educational programs does not implicate protected liberty interest)
- Garza v. Miller, 688 F.2d 480 (7th Cir. 1982) (no constitutional requirement that prisons provide rehabilitative programs)
- Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83 (1981) (private individuals cannot force issuance of arrest warrants or compel criminal prosecution)
- Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013) (procedural requirement to give pro se IFP plaintiffs opportunity to amend or respond before dismissal)