Source: https://openjurist.org/112/f3d/214/channer-v-hall-l
Timestamp: 2019-12-06 00:27:09
Document Index: 251284609

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1252', '§ 1252', '§ 1361', '§ 500', '§ 1252', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 1985', '§ 1981']

112 F. 3d 214 - Channer v. Hall L
112 F3d 214 Channer v. Hall L
112 F.3d 214
Claudious W. CHANNER, Petitioner-Appellant,
Keith HALL, Warden; Gail Haynes; Bill Strunk; Ron
Justice; Immigration and Naturalization Service;
Ms. Smith Food Services; Janet Reno;
and Nancy L. Hooks,
The INA also provided, however, that "[a]n alien sentenced to imprisonment shall not be deported until such imprisonment has been terminated by the release of the alien from confinement." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(h) (1994) (repealed 1996). When Channer was released to INS custody after completing his federal prison sentence, he had not yet begun to serve his Connecticut prison sentence for armed robbery. While no court appears to have addressed factual circumstances similar to Channer's case, we conclude that, had the INS "expeditiously" deported him before he began serving his Connecticut sentence, it would have violated § 1252(h).
Moreover, Channer has no implied private cause of action for damages for the INS's failure to expedite his deportation. In a similar case, we held that an alien lacks standing under the Mandamus and Venue Act ("Mandamus Act"), 28 U.S.C. § 1361, or the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 500-706, to compel the INS to commence deportation proceedings pursuant to section 1252(i). Giddings v. Chandler, 979 F.2d 1104, 1110 (5th Cir.1992). As stated in Giddings,
Giddings, 979 F.2d at 1109-10 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(i)). Neither the language nor the legislative history of this section suggests that Congress intended to create a private right of action for aliens, and no circuit has recognized a private right of action under section 1252(i). See, e.g., Urbina-Mauricio v. INS, 989 F.2d 1085, 1088 (9th Cir.1993). We decline to recognize such a right. Dismissal of Channer's INA claim was proper.
We review the granting of summary judgment de novo, examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. The moving party will prevail if he has demonstrated that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Hale v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914, 917 (5th Cir.1995). Furthermore, we must decide whether Channer has stated a claim for a violation of a constitutional right before reaching the issue of qualified immunity. Doe v. Rains County Indep. Sch. Dist., 66 F.3d 1402, 1404 (5th Cir.1995).3B. Analysis
Channer alleges that, by forcing him to work from 4:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. every day in Oakdale's Food Services Department, Appellees subjected him to involuntary servitude4 in contravention of the Thirteenth Amendment's first section.5 We will assume, arguendo, that the Thirteenth Amendment directly gives rise to a cause of action for damages under the analysis articulated in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) and its progeny. We proceed to the question whether the actions about which Channer complains constitute involuntary servitude.
Id. at 952, 108 S.Ct. at 2765 (emphasis added). Kozminski involved a criminal prosecution, but we effectively extended its definition of involuntary servitude to civil suits. See Watson v. Graves, 909 F.2d 1549 (5th Cir.1990).6 In Watson, inmates who had participated in a work-release program sued local law enforcement officials for subjecting them to involuntary servitude. We recognized that the inmates, despite their status as convicted criminals, retained their civil right not be subjected to involuntary servitude because they had not been sentenced to hard labor. See id. at 1551, 1552. "Involuntary servitude" was defined as
Id. at 1552-53; see also Brooks v. George County, Miss., 84 F.3d 157, 163 (5th Cir.1996) (holding that pretrial detainee's choice between periodically working outside jail in trusty status and remaining in jail all day, while "painful," was not unconstitutionally coercive); Franklin v. Kyle, 66 F.3d 323 (5th Cir.1995) (unpublished opinion) (holding that forcing prisoner to choose between working in prison industries program or risking loss of good-time credits was painful, but not unconstitutionally coercive).
Channer, however, presented evidence of a policy at Oakdale to place any inmate who refused to report to work, both criminal and INS detainees, in a so-called "Segregation Unit." He cited the Oakdale rule book that "[l]ate sleepers who are unable to maintain their rooms or unable to arrive to work on time are subject to disciplinary action." R. at 250. He included the affidavit of Richard Haye, also an INS detainee at the time of Channer's detention by the INS, who described a specific incident in which Haye observed Channer being threatened with detention in the segregation unit if he refused to return to the dish room to work. R. at 248. Haye also averred that all inmates at Oakdale, including himself and other INS detainees, were forced to work. R. at 248-49. Assuming without deciding that segregated detention is a form of legal punishment, we find that there would be at least some evidence that Channer's services were compelled by the use of legal coercion.7
There are, however, two judicially-created exceptions to the prohibition of involuntary servitude. Kozminski, 487 U.S. at 943, 108 S.Ct. at 2760. First, the government may compel its citizens, by threat of criminal sanction, to perform certain civic duties. See, e.g., Hurtado v. United States, 410 U.S. 578, 589 n. 11, 93 S.Ct. 1157, 1164 n. 11, 35 L.Ed.2d 508 (1973) (jury service); Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366, 390, 38 S.Ct. 159, 165, 62 L.Ed. 349 (1918) (military service). Second, the Thirteenth Amendment "was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results," Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328, 332-33, 36 S.Ct. 258, 259-60, 60 L.Ed. 672 (1916). It "was not intended to apply to 'exceptional' cases well established in the common law at the time of the Thirteenth Amendment," such as laws preventing desertion by sailors. Kozminski, 487 U.S. at 944, 108 S.Ct. at 2760-61 (quoting Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 282, 17 S.Ct. 326, 329, 41 L.Ed. 715 (1897)).
Several courts have held that compelling individuals who are involuntarily confined in mental institutions to perform housekeeping tasks does not violate the Thirteenth Amendment. In Bayh v. Sonnenburg, 573 N.E.2d 398, 412 (Ind.1991), the plaintiffs were mental hospital patients who performed a variety of work activities while hospitalized, such as fixing meals, scrubbing dishes, doing the laundry, and cleaning the building. The Indiana Supreme Court held that such labor fit within the Thirteen Amendment's "civic duty" exception. Id. at 410-11. Similarly, the Second Circuit has held that inmates in mental hospitals can be required to perform housekeeping chores. Jobson v. Henne, 355 F.2d 129, 131-32 (2d Cir.1966). Like the mental hospital patients in those cases, Channer performed a housekeeping chore, i.e., working in Oakdale's Food Services Department. We hold that the federal government is entitled to require a communal contribution by an INS detainee in the form of housekeeping tasks, and that Channer's kitchen service, for which he was paid, did not violate the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude.8
Channer also appeals the dismissal of his claim under the 13th Amendment for damages against the INS. No Bivens remedy is available against a federal agency, FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 482-86, 114 S.Ct. 996, 1004-06, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994), and there is no indication that Channer pursued a Federal Tort Claims Act claim
Section two "clothe[s] 'Congress with power to pass all laws necessary and proper for abolishing all badges and incidents of slavery in the United States.' " Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 439, 88 S.Ct. 2186, 2203, 20 L.Ed.2d 1189 (1968) (quoting The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 20, 3 S.Ct. 18, 27-28, 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883)) (emphasis omitted). Appellees contend that there is no direct private right of action under the Amendment because Congress acting under § 2 is the creator and definer of 13th Amendment rights. While it is true that suits attacking the "badges and incidents of slavery" must be based on a statute enacted under § 2, suits attacking compulsory labor arise directly under prohibition of § 1, which is "undoubtedly self-executing without any ancillary legislation" and "[b]y its own unaided force and effect ... abolished slavery, and established universal freedom." The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. at 20, 3 S.Ct. at 28. The cases upon which Appellees rely are § 2 "badges and incidents" cases and are thus inapplicable to Channer's claim. See, e.g., Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971) (suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) arising out of racially motivated assault and battery); Holland v. Board of Trustees of Univ. Dist. Colum., 794 F.Supp. 420, 424 (D.D.C.1992) (holding that discrimination-based "badges and incidents" suit must be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, not directly under 13th Amendment)
We did not cite Kozminski in Watson. Instead, Watson's definition of involuntary servitude relied on two pre-Kozminski cases which held that psychological and private-sector economic coercion did not constitute involuntary servitude. See Flood v. Kuhn, 316 F.Supp. 271, 281 (S.D.N.Y.1970), aff'd, 443 F.2d 264 (2d Cir.1971), aff'd on other grounds, 407 U.S. 258, 92 S.Ct. 2099, 32 L.Ed.2d 728 (1972); United States v. Shackney, 333 F.2d 475, 486 (2d Cir.1964). These cases are consistent with Kozminski
Channer's services were not necessarily voluntary merely because he was paid for his labors. While receiving payment for services is relevant to determining voluntariness, we cannot resolve that factual question against Channer on this record. "Compensation for service may cause consent, but unless it does it is no justification for forced labor." Heflin v. Sanford, 142 F.2d 798, 799 (5th Cir.1944)