Opinion ID: 674585
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Henthorn's Alleged Claim Under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4082

Text: 27 Henthorn finally contends that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint without first considering his claim for prevailing community wages under former section 4082 of title 18. 5 Section 4082 permitted the Attorney General to extend the limits of the place of confinement of certain prisoners, so that they might 28 work at paid employment or participate in a training program in the community on a voluntary basis while continuing as a prisoner of the institution or facility to which he is committed, provided that-- 29 (i) representatives of local union central bodies or similar labor union organizations are consulted; 30 (ii) such paid employment will not result in the displacement of employed workers, or be applied in skills, crafts, or trades in which there is a surplus of available gainful labor in the locality, or impair existing contracts for services; and 31 (iii) the rates of pay and other conditions of employment will not be less than those paid or provided for work of similar nature in the locality in which the work is to be performed. 32 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4082(c)(2) (1982) (emphasis added). We ordered supplemental briefing on whether section 4082(c) created a private right of action in prisoners working pursuant to its terms. We now find, however, that we do not need to decide whether section 4082 conferred a private right of action on federal prisoners, because even assuming that it did, no set of facts that Henthorn could prove consistent with his complaint would allow him to recover under that section. 33 Henthorn's complaint explicitly invoked only the Fair Labor Standards Act as a statutory source for his claim to federal minimum wage. His only mention of section 4082(c) came in his reply to the government's motion to dismiss, which did not form part of Henthorn's complaint. Even in that document, however, Henthorn's mention of section 4082 appears only as support for his FLSA claim. It is likely for this reason that the district court did not address Henthorn's alleged claim for relief under section 4082, a failure which plaintiff now assigns as error. 34 Be that as it may, however, we are mindful that a plaintiff's complaint need not invoke by name or section number the federal law under which he seeks relief. Rather, in order to state a valid claim, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require only that the plaintiff provide a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. FED.R.CIV.P. 8(a)(2). Our job, then, is to parse Henthorn's complaint in search of a concise and plain statement that could possibly entitle Henthorn to relief under section 4082. We find no such statement. Section 4082 authorized the Attorney General to allow certain prisoners to work at paid employment ... in the community on a voluntary basis while continuing as prisoner[s], provided that, among other things, those prisoners are paid the prevailing wage in the community. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4082(c)(2) (emphasis added). But Henthorn's complaint, which alleges that he was required to work by the BOP, and that he performed his work on the Naval Air Base where the federal prison camp was located cannot be described as voluntary work in the community. We therefore hold that, even assuming an implied cause of action did exist under section 4082, a question which we do not decide, Henthorn's complaint would fail to state a claim for which relief could be granted.