United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ENTERING FINAL
Clark, United States District Judge
Plaintiff David Canales, a prisoner of the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit
under 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged violations
of his constitutional rights. This Court referred the case to
the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the
Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to
United States Magistrate Judges. The sole named Defendant is
Texas Governor Gregg Abbott.
complains that he is incarcerated by the State of Texas and
forced to work without any real means of payment. He also
contends that he is at 100 percent on his time credit
computation sheet, which he claims means he is supposed to be
released. He asks for immediate release or that he be paid
wages for work performed during incarceration.
The Report of the Magistrate Judge
review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
recommending the lawsuit be dismissed as frivolous and for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The Magistrate Judge stated that according to Fifth Circuit
precedent, requiring prisoners to work without compensation
does not violate the Constitution or amount to slavery or
involuntary servitude. Wendt v. Lynaugh, 841 F.2d
619, 621 (5th Cir. 1988); Ali v. Johnson, 259 F.3d
317, 317 (5th Cir. 2001). As a result, the Magistrate Judge
determined that Canales' claim of being required to work
without pay lacked an arguable basis in law and failed to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
extent Canales argued that his time sheet was “over 100
percent” and he should be entitled to immediate
release, the Magistrate Judge stated that this claim must be
raised through a petition for the writ of habeas corpus,
which is the only vehicle through which to raise a challenge
to the legality of a prisoner's continued confinement.
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484, 93 S.Ct.
1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); Carson v. Johnson, 112
F.3d 818, 820 (5th Cir. 1997). The Magistrate Judge
recommended that Canales' challenge to his continued
confinement be dismissed without prejudice to his right to
seek habeas corpus relief.
The Plaintiff's Objections
objections, Canales asserts that he declined to consent to
have the Magistrate Judge hear his case and that the action
should be reassigned to a District Judge. The case is and has
been assigned to a District Judge and referred to the
Magistrate Judge for preliminary and pre-trial matters. No
consent is required for such a referral. Newsome v.
EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 230 (5th Cir. 2002). This objection
is without merit.
next complains that the Magistrate Judge determined his claim
was frivolous, meaning without basis in law or fact. He
states that the claim lacks a basis in law because the
instructions on the civil rights lawsuit form tell him not to
cite any cases. Canales argues that his claim does not lack
an arguable basis in fact because the facts show he is not
being paid, he is at 100 percent on his time sheet, slavery
has been abolished, and he is enduring pain and suffering
because of “physical and mental damage obtained through
has not shown that his claim has an arguable basis in law or
that it states a claim upon which relief may be granted,
based on the facts as he sets them out. The Magistrate Judge
correctly determined that Canales is not entitled to be paid
wages for work done in prison and that Canales cannot seek
release from prison in a civil rights lawsuit but must
proceed through habeas corpus. Canales' objections are
Court has conducted a careful de novo review of
those portions of the Magistrate Judge's proposed
findings and recommendations to which the Plaintiff objected.
See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) (District Judge shall
“make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.”) Upon such
de novo review, the Court has determined the Report
of the Magistrate Judge is correct and the Plaintiffs
objections are without merit. It is accordingly
that the Plaintiffs objections are overruled and the Report
of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 6) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the
Plaintiffs claim concerning being denied wages for working is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as ...