Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06030/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06030-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY McKINNEY,

Plaintiff, CV F 04 6030 LJO WMW P 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

 RE MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE 

 RELIEF (DOCS 28, 29)

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation at Kern Valley State Prison, brings this civil rights action

against defendant correctional officials employed by the Department of Corrections at the

California Correctional Institution at Tehachapi.

The conduct at issue in this lawsuit involves an allege denial of outdoor

exercise. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of an order enjoining Defendant from

transferring him to Pelican Bay State Prison, and an order directing Defendants to transfer

him in to federal custody.

In an earlier order, Plaintiff was advised that prisoners have no liberty interest

in being housed at a particular institution. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983);

Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225-27 (1976); United States v. Brown, 59 F.3d 102, 105 (9th

Case 1:04-cv-06030-SMM Document 34 Filed 07/03/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Cir. 1991)(per curiam); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9 Cir. 1991)(per curiam); th

Coakley v. Murphy, 884 F.2d 1218, 1221 (9 Cir. 1989). th

The only conduct at issue in this lawsuit is Plaintiff’s access to outdoor exercise

while Plaintiff was housed at Tehachapi. Concurrent with this recommendation, an order has

issued, dismissing the operative pleading in this action and granting Plaintiff leave to amend. 

Further, Plaintiff has not offered any legal basis upon which this Court can order his transfer to

federal custody.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions for

injunctive relief be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time waives all objections to the judge’s findings of fact. See

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9 Cir. 1998). Failure to file objections within the th

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06030-SMM Document 34 Filed 07/03/07 Page 2 of 2