Shahram Shakouri v. Glen Whitfield
923 F.3d 407
5th Cir.2019Background
- Shakouri, a Texas prisoner, sued eleven Texas prison officials alleging violations of the First, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Texas Constitution, and a Texas statute based on his refusal—on religious grounds—to participate in an unpaid prison work program and alleged retaliatory actions.
- Shakouri initially filed in Texas state court; defendant Glen Whitfield removed the case to federal court. Shakouri moved to remand; the district court denied the motion.
- The district court transferred claims against some defendants to the Western District of Texas and dismissed the remaining federal claims against other defendants; Shakouri appealed denial of remand and dismissals.
- The district court dismissed First and Fourteenth Amendment claims as "malicious" under statutes governing prisoner filings, and dismissed the retaliation and Thirteenth Amendment claims for failure to state a claim.
- The court concluded prisoners lack a Thirteenth Amendment right to avoid unpaid prison labor and lack a constitutional right to refuse prison work on religious grounds; it declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing federal claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) | Shakouri: Whitfield’s removal was untimely because the 30-day clock began on service and Whitfield was served earlier. | Whitfield: No proper service on him, so the 30-day removal period never began. | The court held removal was timely because the only proof of service was to the Texas Attorney General, not Whitfield; thus no proper service and no 30-day limit. |
| Consent of co-defendants under § 1446(b)(2)(A) | Shakouri: Removal invalid because other defendants did not join or consent. | Whitfield: § 1446(b)(2)(A) applies only to defendants properly served; no defendant was properly served here. | The court held no violation of § 1446(b)(2)(A) because there was no evidence any defendant had been properly served. |
| Dismissal as "malicious" under §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) / 1915A(b)(1) | Shakouri: Dismissal improper; statutes cited are in the in forma pauperis context and may not apply. | Defendants/district court: Shakouri’s claims repeated prior suits alleging the same events and thus were malicious and dismissible. | The court affirmed: dismissal for maliciousness was proper because claims were virtually identical to prior suits. |
| Failure to state a claim — Thirteenth Amendment and retaliation | Shakouri: Unpaid forced work and retaliation for refusing work violated Thirteenth Amendment and his constitutional rights. | Defendants: Prisoners cannot state a Thirteenth Amendment claim for required prison labor; no constitutional right to refuse unpaid prison work, so no retaliation claim. | The court held Shakouri failed to state a Thirteenth Amendment claim and his retaliation claim failed because prisoners lack a right to decline unpaid prison labor. |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | Shakouri: (implicit) federal court should retain state claims. | District court: With federal claims dismissed, it may decline supplemental jurisdiction. | The court affirmed district court’s discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all federal claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 775 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2014) (service and removal timing principles)
- Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999) (service triggers removal clock rules)
- Matthews v. Lenoir, 439 S.W.3d 489 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (service on state attorney general does not serve state employee)
- Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1988) (repeated claims may be dismissed as malicious)
- Ali v. Johnson, 259 F.3d 317 (5th Cir. 2001) (prisoners cannot state viable Thirteenth Amendment claim for required prison labor)