GREENE

v.

DIXON

Plaintiff, a prisoner in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections, initiated this lawsuit by submitting a civil rights complaint, ECF No. 1, against the current Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, as well as the former Secretaries who served between the years 2008 - 2024. Id. at 1-3. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee at the time of case initiation on December 4, 2024, but the $405.00 filing fee was subsequently received and entered on the docket. ECF No. 5.

Prior to receipt of the fee, a cursory review was made of Plaintiff's complaint, ECF No. 1, and an Order was entered, ECF No. 4, pointing out

that Plaintiff had not acknowledged all prior federal cases filed by him in his original complaint. See ECF No. 1 at 9-12. Plaintiff was required to file an amended complaint in which he honestly and completely disclosed all prior cases. ECF No. 4.

On December 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff has now acknowledged the three prior civil cases filed (case numbers 6:12cv00764, 5:14cv00480, [fn 1] and 5:14cv00623), as well as his prior habeas petition, case number 5:12cv00217, all of which were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Further, he has listed previously filed state court cases. See ECF No. 7 at 9-17. Plaintiff also appears to acknowledge that two of his civil cases were dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Id. at 9. Plaintiff specifically acknowledged that case number 6:12cv764 was dismissed as frivolous, and said that case number 5:14cv623 was "dismissed, subject to PLRA.” Id. Stated more clearly, that second case (5:14cv623) was dismissed upon 28 U.S.C. § 1915A review because the complaint failed to state a claim under the False Claims Act, because it was barred by Heck v.

Humphrey, and because he sought monetary damages from Defendants who are immune from such relief. See ECF No. 18 of case # 5:14cv623. That dismissal counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as does case number 6:12cv764.

Knowing that he had two prior “strikes,” Plaintiff filed the amended complaint, ECF No. 7, which has now been reviewed as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff alleges that since he has been “committed into Defendant's custody . . . Plaintiff has been forced to at least 40-hours per week of institutional labor, serving the Department and the people in it.” Id. at 5. He alleges that he is forced to labor under threat of discipline, but there is no state “labor statute" that exists. Id. He says he is forced to work against his will and has been subjected to involuntary servitude for more than 16 years. Id. at 5-6. He asserts a due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment and an “involuntary servitude” claim under the Thirteenth Amendment. Id. at 7.

Plaintiff has failed to state an actionable claim under the Thirteenth Amendment because it is well settled that inmates have no constitutional right to compensation for their labor and may be required to work by prison officials. The Thirteenth Amendment specifically allows for involuntary

Case No. 4:24cv486-WS-MAF

servitude as punishment after conviction of a crime. See U.S. Const. Amend. XIII, § 1; Nash v. Talton, No. 518CV00175TESCHW, 2019 WL 544953, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 11, 2019) (stating “[t]he Thirteenth Amendment prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime for which the party has been duly convicted"). "When 'a prisoner is incarcerated pursuant to a presumptively valid judgment and commitment order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction and is forced to work pursuant to prison regulations or state statutes, the thirteenth amendment's prohibition against involuntary servitude is not implicated." Omasta v. Wainwright, 696 F. 2d 1304, 1305 (11th Cir. 1983) (quoted in Holt v. Givens, 757 F. App'x 915, 922 (11th Cir. 2018)).

In addition, Plaintiff alleged in his prior case (case number 6:12cv764) that he was “forced into slavery.” ECF No. 8 at 6 of that case. The argument that Plaintiff was being held as a “slave” in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment was rejected by United States District Judge W. Terrell Hodges. In an opinion entered on August 19, 2015, Judge Hodges noted that when a prisoner is convicted and “forced to work,” the Thirteenth Amendment is not implicated. ECF No. 18 at 6 (citing to Omasta v.

Case No. 4:24cv486-WS-MAF

Wainwright). The law has not changed in the nearly 10 years since Plaintiff's previous claim was dismissed.

Additionally, Plaintiff has not presented a viable due process claim either. To allege such a claim, Plaintiff must show that he has been subjected to conditions of confinement which implicate his liberty interest. The standard, as set forth by the United States Supreme Court, requires a prisoner to show he was subjected to an "atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484-486 (1995). Here, Plaintiff has not done so. An allegation that a convicted prisoner is required to perform labor by prison officials does not show an “atypical, significant deprivation” of liberty. Sandin, 515 U.S. at 486. This case should be summarily dismissed as frivolous and for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

If this recommendation is adopted, Plaintiff is on notice that he will have accumulated “three strikes” and will be barred from proceeding with in forma pauperis status unless he faces imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Case No. 4:24cv486-WS-MAF

RECOMMENDATION

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's amended complaint, ECF No. 7, be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and because it is frivolous. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Order adopting this Report and Recommendation direct the Clerk of Court to note on the docket that this cause was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii).

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on January 6, 2025.

S/ Martin A. Fitzpatrick

MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written objections to these proposed findings and recommendations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the Court's internal use only and does not control. If a party fails to object to the Magistrate Judge's findings or recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court's order based on the unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case No. 4:24cv486-WS-MAF

[fn 1]: Case 5:14cv480 was dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to pay the required filing fee or file an in forma pauperis motion. ECF No. 7 of that case. Case No. 4:24cv486-WS-MAF