## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 08

- 1596 P ASCHALL L. S AN D ERS III, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. K EV I N H AYDEN , e tal ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 08- C- 146

—William C. G riesbach, Judge

.
S UB MI TT ED A UGUS T 21, 2008

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 12, 2008

Befo re P OSNER, R OV NER, an d W OO D, Circ uit Ju dg es . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . A fter ser vi ng a pri son se ntence, th e pl ai nt i f fw as ci vi l l y c o m m i tt ed to a s ec ur e tr ea tment f aci l i ty

— the W i sco nsi n Reso urce Center

— a s a se x u ally vio len t p er so n . W is. St at . § 98 0.0 6. H e h a s b ro u gh t t h is su it u n d er 42 U .S.C . § 19 83 ag ain st va riou s s ta te offici al s, cl ai m i ng tha t th ey vi ol ate d his federa l r i ghts by red uc ing his pa y for th e w ork he p erform s at the Ce nt er. The dis tr i ct j ud ge dism i sse d the co m pla i nt.2 N o. 08

- 1596 The pla i nti f fbas es hi s s uito n the A m er i cans with D i sabi l i tyAct, the Re habi l i ta ti o n Act, a nd the due proce ss and e q u alpro tect i on cl auses o fthe Four tee nth A m en d m en t, an d as th e d ist ric t ju d g e ex p lain ed th er e is no po ss ibl e ba si s i n the se pr o vi si o ns f o r the c o m pl ai nt about the wage c u t. Yet the pl ai nti f fal l ege s that when he star ted w or k he w as paid the m i ni m um wage ( w hether the W i sco nsi n orthe f edera l wage i s uncl ear, and al so, as w e a re abo ut to s ee , i m m ate ri al ) and that thi s was then c u t t o $ 2 t o $ 2.5 0 a n h ou r, ata tim e w h en th e W isc on sin m i ni m um wage was $6. 50 and the federa l $5

. 15. A l though he does not re f er to the Fai r Labor St andards A ct, i t is th e o b v i o u s ba sis for a co m p lain t ab ou t n ot be in g p aid th e mi n i mu m wa g e a n d s i n c e h e i s a p r i s o n e r s ui ng wi th o utthe a i d o fa l awy er w e co ns tr ue hi s co m pl ai nt t o b e ma k i n gs u c h a c l a i m. P r i s o n a n d j a i l i n ma t e s a r e n o tc o v e r e d b y th e F L S A. Ben ne t t v. Frank, 395 F.3d 40 9 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ); Vans ki kev. P eters , 974 F.2d 80 6, 81 0-1 2 (7 th C ir. 19 92 ); Lovi ng v. Johns on , 455 F.3 d 5 62 (5th C ir. 2006) (per cu riam ); Tours ch e rv. M cCul l ough , 18 4 F.3d 23 6, 24 3-4 4 (3d C ir. 19 99 ); Vil l ar r e al v. Woodha m , 1 13 F.3d 202, 206-07 (11th Cir. 1997); Gam b e t t a v. P rison R eha bilita tiv e Ind ustries & D iversified E nterp rises, Inc. , 112 F .3 d 1 1 19 , 112 4 (1 1t h C ir. 19 97 ); D ann e s kj ol d v
. H ausrath , 8 2 F.3 d 37, 42 (2 d C ir. 19 96 ); M cM a ster v. M inn esota , 30 F. 3d 976, 980 (8th Cir. 1994); He nt hor n v . D epar t m e nt of Navy, 29 F.3 d 68 2, 68 6-8 7 (D .C . C ir. 19 94 ); H arkerv. State Us eInd ustries , 9 9 0 F
. 2 d 1 3 1 , 1 3 2 ( 4 t h C i r . 1 9 9 3 )
. As we ex pl ai ne d i n B enne tt, “ peop le are no t i m pr i so ne d f o r the pu rpos e o fenabl i ng the m to ea rn a l i vi ng. The pri son pays f orthei r ke ep . If i t puts them to work, i t i s t o off set som e o fthe cos t o fk ee p i ng the m , o r to kee p them o ut o fN o. 08

- 1596 3

m i schi ef, o r to eas e thei r tr ansi ti on t o the worl d outsi de, o r to equ i p them with s ki l l s a nd habi ts that w i l l m ake them l ess l i kel y t o re turn t o cri m e o utsi de. N one ofthes e goa l s i s co m patibl e with f edera l re gul ati on o fthei r w age s and hours. The r eas on the FLSA contai ns no ex press excep tio n forpri sone rs i s pro babl y that the i dea was to o outl andish to occurto anyo ne wh en the l egisl ati on was und erco nsi derat i on byCongr ess . ” 3 95 F. 3d at 410. I fthe wor ds “c o nfi ne d c i vi l l y a s a se xua l l y v i o l en t perso n” ar e s ub stituted f or“i m pri sone d” i n the fi rs t se nt en ce a nd “ se cur e tr ea tmentf ac i l i ty ” f o r “pr i so n” i n the se co nd s en te nc e, the quot ed pa ss ag e a ppl i es equa l l y to the pr es en t ca se , a s he l d i n H e ndr i cks on v. Ne l s on , N o. 05

- C1305 , 2006 W L 23348 38 (E.D
. W is. A ug . 1 0, 2006 ). A nd years ea rlier th e F irs t C irc u it h ad h eld th at p er so n s c ivilly commi t t e d b e c a us e t he y we r e s e xu a l l y v i o l e nt we r e no t cove re d by the FLSA, not i ng tha t “ the m i ni m um wage i s no t ne ede d t o protect th e appe l l an ts ’ wel l

-be i nga nd stan d ard of li ving .
. . . SDP s [sexu all y d an gerou s p erson s], l i k e th e m o r e co m m o n r un o f pr i so ne r s, a r e ca r ed f o r ( an d th ei r s ta nda r d o fl i vi ngi s det er m ined , w i th i n c o ns ti tu
ti onal l i m i ts) by the sta te
. . . . [ A nd ] the paym en t o f su bm in im u m w ag es to SD P s p re se n ts n o t h re at of u n fair c om p et itio n to ot h er em p loy er s, w h o m u st p ay th e m in im um wag e to the i r e m pl o y ee s, be ca us e th e Tr ea tment Cen te r do es not op erat e i n the mar k et pl ac e an d ha s no busi ness com peti tor s. ” M il le r v. D uka kis , 96 1 F
. 2d 7, 9 ( 1st C i r . 1 9 9 2 ) ( p e r c u r i a m)
. We a g r e e a n d a ffi r m.

9- 12- 08