Luke Soule v. M. Potts
676 F. App'x 585
7th Cir.2017Background
- Soule, a federal inmate at FCI Oxford, worked in the vegetable-preparation room and was reassigned to a lower-pay dining-room job after prison staff suspected onions were stolen.
- Soule alleges he was disciplined based on a false assumption of theft and that BOP policy created a vested right to his pay grade and job.
- He filed administrative grievances which were denied at all levels.
- Soule sued in district court (Bivens claim), asserting due-process violations and reliance on 28 C.F.R. § 545.26(h).
- The district court dismissed for failure to state a due-process claim, concluding Soule had no protected liberty or property interest in his assignment or pay grade.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Soule had a constitutional liberty or property interest in his prison job/pay grade | Soule: BOP policy and 28 C.F.R. § 545.26(h) created a vested property interest in his earned pay grade and thus a due-process right not to be downgraded without procedure | Defendants: Constitution grants no substantive entitlement to prison employment; BOP rules do not create entitlement to a particular job or pay grade | Court: No protected liberty or property interest; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the reassignment imposed "atypical and significant hardship" under Sandin | Soule: Reassignment and pay downgrade were sufficiently substantial to trigger Sandin protections | Defendants: Reassignment was within ordinary incidents of prison life and not atypical or significant | Court: Reassignment did not meet Sandin; no due-process protection |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (prisoners have no substantive entitlement to employment)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (due-process protection requires "atypical and significant hardship")
- DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607 (no constitutional right to prison employment)
- Wallace v. Robinson, 940 F.2d 243 (regulations do not create entitlement to specific job assignment)
- Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191 (same principle regarding prison-job interests)
- Bulger v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 65 F.3d 48 (no due-process right to prison employment)
- Abdul-Wadood v. Nathan, 91 F.3d 1023 (applying Sandin to deny protected interest)
- Johnson v. Rowley, 569 F.3d 40 (regulation protecting earned pay does not guarantee specific job assignment)