McCabe v. Chaviano
4:17-cv-04057
C.D. Ill.May 22, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jerry Lee McCabe, a civilly detained resident at Rushville under the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act, sued two state officials (Hugo Chaviano and James T. Dimass) claiming denial of minimum wage for work performed at the facility.
- Plaintiff proceeded pro se and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
- The court reviewed the complaint under the standard for IFP filings and for failure to state a claim, accepting factual allegations as true but requiring plausible claims.
- The court observed existing precedent holding detainees at Rushville have no federal right to a job or to minimum wages while confined.
- Based on that precedent and the complaint’s deficiencies, the court concluded McCabe failed to state a federal claim and dismissed the case and denied IFP status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a civilly detained Rushville resident is entitled to minimum wage for work at the facility | McCabe contends he was denied minimum wage for work performed at Rushville | Defendants implicitly argue (via precedent) detainees have no federal right to a job or wages while confined | Court held McCabe has no federal right to a job or to minimum wages in the facility and dismissed the claim |
| Whether the complaint states a claim sufficient to proceed IFP | McCabe seeks IFP and asserts constitutional/statutory violations | Court applies §1915 screening: claims must be non-frivolous and plausible | Court denied IFP and dismissed under §1915 for failure to state a claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Brewster v. North Am. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649 (7th Cir. 1972) (IFP privilege is reserved for truly impoverished litigants and is discretionary)
- Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2013) (courts must liberally construe pro se complaints but require plausible factual allegations)
- Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2013) (complaints must state a plausible claim for relief)
- Bennett v. Frank, 395 F.3d 409 (7th Cir. 2005) (detainees lack a federal right to wages for work performed in confinement)
- McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002) (discusses prisoners’ rights and conditions of confinement principles)
- Wallace v. Robinson, 940 F.2d 243 (7th Cir. 1991) (addresses scope of detainees’ rights in confinement)