UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

GARY WILDER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-243 PS 

vs. )

)

JESSICA RAIN, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Gary Wilder, a pro se prisoner, has filed an amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

1983, again complaining about the termination of the PLUS1

 program at the Westville

Correctional Facility. (DE 7.) Wilder alleges that terminating the PLUS program was

unconstitutional, and also complains that the program was terminated without due

process. 

1

“The Purposeful Living Units Serve (PLUS) program is a faith- and character-based

community that encourages offenders to choose alternatives to criminal thinking and

behavior by providing a focus on spiritual and character development, life-skills

training community service, and intentional preparation for living as law-abiding

citizens. Key components of the program include a strong positive peer culture a

curriculum that addresses risk factors and establishing a mentoring relationship with a

positive role model volunteer from the community. Now in its fourth year, the PLUS

program is offered at 16 different facilities with a current enrollment of approximately

1,200 participants. Since its inception, over 1,000 PLUS participants have completed the

12-16 month program. Of these, around 200 have been released back into the

community. The current return rate of PLUS graduates is less than 5%, compared with

the overall recidivism rate of 37%. In 2009, PLUS was nationally recognized by the

American Correctional Chaplains Association by receiving their Offender Program of

the Year award.” (http://www.in.gov/idoc/2799.htm (last visited 06/09, 2015)).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, I must review 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.

Courts apply the same standard under Section 1915A as when deciding a motion under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th

Cir. 2006). To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must state a

claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Bissessur v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d

599, 602-03 (7th Cir. 2009). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads

factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant

is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 603. Furthermore, “[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). To state claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must

allege: “(1) that defendants deprived him of a federal constitutional right; and (2) that

the defendants acted under color of state law.” Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th

Cir. 2006). 

Wilder’s original complaint made a number of various allegations surrounding

the termination of the PLUS program. However, because it was not entirely clear what

Wilder was trying to accomplish, he was granted leave to file an amended complaint in

the spirit of Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013). (DE 3.) He has now filed

an amended complaint, alleging that his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel

2
and unusual punishment was violated when the PLUS program was terminated. And,

further, his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated when

the PLUS program was terminated without a hearing. Neither of these allegations

plausibly states a claim for relief.

As I previously noted, “[t]here is no constitutional mandate to provide

educational, rehabilitative, or vocational programs, in the absence of conditions that

give rise to a violation of the Eighth Amendment.” (DE 4 at 3) (citing Zimmerman v.

Tribble, 226 F.3d 568, 571 (7th Cir.2000) (internal quotation omitted)). Consequently, “the

denial of access to educational programs does not infringe on a protected liberty

interest.” Id. Moreover, because the successful completion of an educational program is

not inevitable, the denial of the opportunity to earn good time credits through

educational programs “does not inevitably affect the duration of the sentence and does

not deprive him of constitutional guarantees.” Id. (internal quotation omitted); see also

Sandin, 515 U.S. at 487 (due process is required only when state action “will inevitably

affect the duration of [a prisoner's] sentence”). Consequently, not only does Wilder have

no constitutional right to participate in the PLUS program, but he can not challenge the

process he was given with respect to having the PLUS Program delayed or terminated

either. See Zimmerman, 226 F.3d at 571. Therefore, Wilder’s Eighth Amendment claim

and Fourteenth Amendment claim must be dismissed.

It appears that Wilder is also raising a host of other claims based on Indiana state

law. (DE 7 at 3, 4.) Because the federal claims must be dismissed, the court declines to

3
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Wilder’s remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. §

1367(c)(3); Capeheart v. Terrell, 695 F.3d 681, 686 (7th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, his state

law claims are dismissed without prejudice and he is free to pursue those in state court.

For the reasons set forth above, the federal claims contained in the amended

complaint (DE 7) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,

and the state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

SO ORDERED

ENTERED: August 4, 2015. s/ Philip P. Simon 

Philip P. Simon, Chief Judge

United States District Court

4