Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01127/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01127-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Coun of Appeals 

TP.oth Circuit 

JUL 31 1991 

:ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

BRET STEVEN KLEIN, .. ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

FRANK GUNTER, Official Capacities; ) 

LOU HESSE, Official Capacities; ) 

GREG BOODAKIAN, Official Capacities;) 

JOE PAOLINO, Official Capacities; ) 

FRANK (I) GUNTER, and in their indi-) 

vidual capacities; LOU (I) HESSE, ) 

and in their individual capacities; ) 

GREG (I) BOODAKIAN, and in their ) 

individual capacities; JOE (I) ) 

PAOLINO, and in their individual ) 

capacities, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 91-1127 

(D.C. No. 91-B-224) 

(D. Colorado) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

- haa determined unanimously tha-t orct-1 a~t would not materially 

a.aais.t. the. det.e'Cllljnation of this appeal. See Ee.d.. R.- App. p • 

34(a}; 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir.~- 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-1127 Document: 010110129504 Date Filed: 07/31/1991 Page: 1 
" 

Plaintiff Bret Steven Klein appeals the district court's 

dismissal of his 42 u.s.c. S 1983 claims against various officials 

of the Centennial Correctional Facility, Canon City, Colorado. 

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, alleged in his complaint that 

defendants denied him due .process. and deprived .him of equal 

protection under the Fourteenth Amendment when they removed him 

from his job at the prison print shop that paid him $2 per day and 

seventy-six days later assigned him to work in the kitchen, which 

paid seventy-two cents per day. He based his claim on Colorado 

statutes which provide that an able-bodied inmate be kept at the 

work "most suitable to his capacity," Colo. Rev. Stat. S 17-20-

117, and that he shall perform labor "under such rules and 

regulations as may be prescribed by the department [of 

corrections]," id. S 17-20-115. Plaintiff also relies upon the 

consent decree entered pursuant to Ramos v. Lamm, 485 F. Supp. 

122, 157 (D. Colo. 1979), aff'd in part, vacated in part on other 

grounds, 639 F.2d 559 (10th Cir. 1980), which requires the prison 

to provide work programs for at least ninety percent of "eligible 

prisoners," defined as general population inmates, but excluding 

those unable to work for some "medical or security reason." See I 

R. tab 5 at 2. Plaintiff admits- he- wa& removed from the print' 

shop job because of a change in prison policy to close such jobs 

to maximum security inmates See r R .. tab 3 at 3. The magistrat& 

judge was of the opinion, citing Ingram v. Papalia, 804 F.2d 595, 

596-97 (10th Cir. 1986), that plaintiff has no constitutional 

right to prison employment and recommended dismissal of his 

complaint. The district court affirmed and plaintiff appealed. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1127 Document: 010110129504 Date Filed: 07/31/1991 Page: 2 
f 

After examining the record and the applicable law, we agree 

with the district court that plaintiff has failed to show that he 

was deprived of any constitutional rights. Ingram held that 

neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Colorado law creates a 

protected .. property or liberty interest in prison employment. 804 

F.2d at 596-97. While that decision did not cite the Colorado 

statutory provisions relied upon by plaintiff, the statute it did 

cite, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-24-102, is substantially identical in 

its requirements to §§ 17-20-115 and 17-20-117. We note 

particularly that§ 17-20-115 defers to the rules of the Colorado 

Department of Corrections, and plaintiff admits he lost his job 

because of a policy or rule change. Plaintiff's allegations that 

he "was not offered a job equal to the one taken while some other 

inmates were" and that he "suffered a sibstantial [sic] cut in 

pay," IR. tab 3 at 3, fail to provide a sufficient basis for an 

equal protection claim. Prisoners are not members of a protected 

group under the Equal Protection Clause. See Ruark v. Solano, 928 

F.2d 947, 949 (10th Cir. 1991). 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the-Courtr 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-1127 Document: 010110129504 Date Filed: 07/31/1991 Page: 3