IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

MARK RICHMOND, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-227 

vs. )

)

INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on the complaint (DE 3) filed

by Mark Richmond, a pro se prisoner, on April 27, 2015, in the

LaPorte Superior Court under cause number 46D02-1504-CT-825 and

removed to this court by the United States Department of Labor on

May 28, 2015. For the reasons set forth below, the court: (1)

DISMISSES the claims against the United States Department of Labor;

(2) DISMISSES the United States Department of Labor; (3) GRANTS

Mark Richmond until June 30, 2015, to file an amended complaint;

and (4) CAUTIONS Mark Richmond that if he does not respond by that

deadline, the remaining claims will be remanded to the LaPorte

Superior Court.

BACKGROUND

Mark Richmond is an inmate at the Indiana State Prison. From

July 17, 2006, to October 28, 2013, he was enrolled in the

Paralegal Apprenticeship Program at the prison. He alleges that
program was registered with the United States Department of Labor.

His participation in the program ended when Apprenticeship

Coordinator Kristal Kajer discontinued the program. Richmond

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. The United States

Department of Labor removed the case to this Court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) because it is an agency of the United States. 

DISCUSSION

“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,

the court 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. 

Richmond did not attach a copy of the contact 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

-2-
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

the Richmond has named the Department of Labor because it

administered the national standards under which his apprenticeship

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 Richmond did

not attach a copy of the contract which he alleges was breached, it

-3-
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 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 to this Court solely because the

Department of Labor is an agency of the United States. Without the

Department of Labor, it would not be appropriate for this Court to

exercise 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, 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 the Court should retain supplemental

-4-
jurisdiction, this case will be remanded to the LaPorte Superior

Court if Richmond does not file an amended complaint which can

state a claim against the Department of Labor.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court: (1) DISMISSES the

claims against the United States Department of Labor; (2) DISMISSES

the United States Department of Labor; (3) GRANTS Mark Richmond

until June 30, 2015, to file an amended complaint; and (4) CAUTIONS

Mark Richmond that if he does not respond by that deadline, the

remaining claims will be remanded to the LaPorte Superior Court.

DATED: June 3, 2015 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United State District Court

-5-