Opinion ID: 711701
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Denial of a Job

Text: 24 Abate has no federal constitutional liberty of property interest in prison employment. Lyon v. Farmer, 727 F.2d 766, 769 (7th Cir.1984) (prisoners have no constitutional entitlement to tenure in prison jobs; whatever interests inhere in prison employment are the product of state law); see also Bauman v. Arizona Dep't of Corrections, 754 F.2d 841, 846 (9th Cir.1985) (denial of work and home furlough does not implicate constitutional interests because no state created liberty interest). 25 In addition, state created liberty interests will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which, while not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the Due Process Clause ... nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. Sandin v. Conner, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 2300 (1995) (rejecting Hewitt v. Helms analysis and holding that prisoner has no liberty interest in avoiding thirty days of disciplinary segregation as punishment for misconduct). The denial of a prison job does not impose atypical and significant hardship on an inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life and therefore under Sandin does not implicate a state created liberty interest. 26 Thus, although Abate presents evidence through his own affidavits that conflicts with ADOC's account of his employment history, Abate's inability to obtain the prison job he desires is not grounds for an action under Sec. 1983. 7 Moreover, Abate's claim that he was underpaid as a law library clerk also fails to meet the above standard.