Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03824/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03824-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARLIE LEE PATON,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

D. SWEARINGEN, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-3824 CRB (PR)

ORDER

(Docs # 11 & 13)

Plaintiff, a prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City,

California, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging

that prison officials have refused to put him on the “clerical waiting list” for a

paying prison job despite his having had a paying clerical job at California State

Prison, Los Angeles County. 

Per order filed on October 25, 2005, the court dismissed the complaint

under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. The court explained:

Plaintiff’s allegations must be dismissed under the authority

of § 1915A(b) because it is well-established that there is no

constitutional right to a job in prison, much less to a paying job. 

See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1254-55 (9th Cir. 1982) (no

right to job in prison); see also Lyon v. Farrier, 727 F.2d 766, 769

(8th Cir. 1984) (prisoners have no right to tenure in their prison

jobs). Nor is there any indication that California has created a

protected liberty or property interest in a prison job. The California

Constitution states that its provisions on inmate labor shall not be

interpreted as creating a right of inmates to work, Cal. Const. art.

XIV § 5, and the state statute which provides for work credits, Cal.

Penal Code § 2933, has been found not to create a protected liberty

interest, see Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1095 (9th Cir.

1986). 

Case 3:05-cv-03824-CRB Document 14 Filed 01/12/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

Plaintiff has now filed a notice of appeal accompanied by a motion for a

certificate of appealability and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on

appeal. Plaintiff’s motion (doc # 11) for a certificate of appealability is denied as

unnecessary, and plaintiff’s motion (doc # 13) for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal is denied under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)

because the appeal is frivolous and not taken in good faith. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Jan. 12, 2006 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03824-CRB Document 14 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 2