Huskey v. Dep't of Corrections

“Article I, section 41(3), states, in relevant part, that ‘no inmate has a legally enforceable right to a job or to otherwise participate in work, on-the-job training or educational programs or to compensation for work or labor performed while an inmate of any state, county or city corrections facility or institution.”

Plaintiff, an adult in custody (AIC), “settled a civil rights action against the Oregon Department of Corrections [DOC] and various individuals associated with it.” As part of the settlement agreement, Plaintiff agreed to dismiss the suit in exchange for a change his placement and an agreement not to retaliate against him for bringing the suit. Subsequently, Plaintiff discovered that the DOC used his identity, as well as images of him, in a “negative, highly prejudicial, and deleterious manner” for training materials as a form of retaliation against him. As a result, plaintiff sued pro se for breach of contract, seeking $11,640 in damages, punitive damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief; claiming denial of job assignments, training opportunities, and other opportunities to earn wages. Plaintiff also alleged discriminatory treatment in visiting, denial of housing, and emotional and mental harm. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. “Article I, section 41(3), states, in relevant part, that ‘no inmate has a legally enforceable right to a job or to otherwise participate in work, on-the-job training or educational programs or to compensation for work or labor performed while an inmate of any state, county or city corrections facility or institution.” The Court held that the Oregon Constitution “bars plaintiff from pursuing a claim of that nature” because “AICs are legally barred from recovering economic damages in the form of lost income.” Furthermore, the Court held that his claims based on the negative impact to his visitation and housing, which were non-economic in nature, may not be awarded to an AIC without first establishing economic damages under ORS 31.705. However, the state conceded that a remand was necessary because “a declaratory judgment action cannot be dismissed under ORCP 21 A(1)(h).” Judgment on claim for declaratory relief vacated and remanded for entry of judgment declaring the rights of the parties; otherwise affirmed.