Case ID: f-appx_430/html/0615-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wade THORNTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-15418.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2011.
    
    Filed May 3, 2011.
    Wade Thornton, Represa, CA, pro se.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Wade Thornton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking to prevent his transfer to an out-of-state prison. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Thornton’s claim that California Penal Code § 11191 vests him with a state-created liberty interest in avoiding an involuntary transfer to an out-of-state prison because the statute has been revised to delete the requirement that such transfers be voluntary. See Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1092 (9th Cir.1986) (a state-created liberty interest ceases to exist if the state repeals the statute or eliminates the regulation creating the liberty interest), abrogated in part on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995).

Thornton’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.