UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

RONRICO J. HATCH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-279 PS 

vs. )

)

INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Ronrico J. Hatch, a pro se prisoner, filed an amended complaint (DE 1-2 at 70-82)

on June 5, 2015, in the LaPorte Superior Court under cause number 46D02-1505-CT-924,

which was removed to this court by the United States Department of Labor on July 6,

2015. Hatch is an inmate at the Indiana State Prison. From July 6, 2007, to October 28,

2013, he was enrolled in the Paralegal Apprenticeship Program at the prison. He alleges

that program was operated by the Indiana Department of Corrections and certified with

the United States Department of Labor. His participation in the program ended when

Apprenticeship Coordinator Kristal Kajer discontinued the program. Hatch alleges that

when he started the program, he entered into a contract. He filed this case in the

LaPorte Superior court seeking to recover for a breach of that contract. After he

amended the complaint to include the United States Department of Labor, it removed

the case to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) because it is an agency of the

United States.
“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint,

however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal

pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation

marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, I must

review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary

relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 

Hatch did not attach a copy of the contract which he alleges was breached and

therefore it is unclear why he believes that the United States Department of Labor had a

contract with him. However, what is clear is an apprenticeship contract executed by an

apprentice in a program registered with the United States Department of Labor is not a

contract with the Department of Labor. Rather it is “a written agreement, complying

with §29.7 between an apprentice and either the apprentice’s program sponsor, or an

apprenticeship committee acting as agent for the program sponsor(s), which contains

the terms and conditions of the employment and training of the apprentice.” 29 C.F.R. §

29.2. Moreover, “[n]owhere in [29 C.F.R. Part 29] is [the Department of Labor Bureau of

Apprenticeship and Training] granted authority to contract with private individuals

concerning apprenticeship training or their wages during such training.” Lopinson v.

United States, 15 Cl. Ct. 712, 715 (1988). “Hence, no implied-in-fact contract existed or

could exist.” Id. Furthermore, to the extent that Hatch has named the Department of

Labor because it administered the national standards under which his apprenticeship

2
program was operating, “[a]n attempt to implement standards which promote the

common good and general welfare clearly constitutes a sovereign act.” Id. at 716. As

such, the department has sovereign immunity and cannot be sued. See F.D.I.C. v. Meyer,

510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). 

As explained, this complaint does not state a claim against the Department of

Labor. Therefore the Department of Labor, and the claims against it, must be dismissed.

However, because Hatch did not attach a copy of the contract which he alleges was

breached, it remains possible (however unlikely) that he did have a contract (other than

his apprenticeship contract) directly with the Department of Labor. If he does, he may

file an amended complaint setting forth those allegations and attaching a copy of the

contact showing that the Department of Labor directly entered into a contract with him.

See generally Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013). If he does this, the

Department of Labor may be restored as a defendant in this case. But if not, then there

are no longer any federal defendants or claims remaining. 

This case was removed here solely because the Department of Labor is an agency

of the United States. Without the Department of Labor, it would not be appropriate for

me to exercise the court’s supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining defendants and

claims. See Al’s Serv. Ctr. v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 720, 727 (7th Cir.2010)

(“When all federal claims in a suit in federal court are dismissed before trial, the

presumption is that the court will relinquish federal jurisdiction over any supplemental

state-law claims.”); and Doe-2 v. McLean County Unit Dist. No. 5 Bd. of Dirs., 593 F.3d 507,

3
513 (7th Cir. 2010) (“Ordinarily, when a district court dismisses the federal claims

conferring original jurisdiction prior to trial, it relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction

over any state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).”) Therefore unless one of the

parties can overcome that presumption by explaining why I should retain supplemental

jurisdiction, this case will be remanded to the LaPorte Superior Court if Hatch does not

file an amended complaint which can state a claim against the Department of Labor.

For these reasons, the court:

(1) ORDERS the clerk to separately docket the amended complaint (DE 1-2 at 70-

77);

(2) ORDERS the clerk to send a copy of this opinion by U.S. Mail to the

following individuals:

Caryn Margaret Newman

Office of Indiana Attorney General

Indiana Government Center

South, Fifth Floor

302 W. Washington Street

Indianapolis, IN 46204

Kirsten Tisdale

PEN Products

2010 E. New York Street

Indianapolis, IN 46201

Stephen Steed

PEN Products

2010 E. New York Street

Indianapolis, IN 46201

(3) DISMISSES the claims against the United States Department of Labor; 

(4) DISMISSES the United States Department of Labor;

4
(5) GRANTS Ronrico J. Hatch until September 1, 2015, to file an amended

complaint; and

(6) CAUTIONS Ronrico J. Hatch that if he does not respond by that deadline, the

remaining claims will be remanded to the LaPorte Superior Court.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: August 3, 2015. s/ Philip P. Simon 

Chief Judge

United States District Court

5