Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02385/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02385-16/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

JAMES HINES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2385 GEB EFB P

vs.

NUCKLE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 7, 2006, plaintiff filed a request for

transfer to a different facility. Inmates do not have a constitutional right to be housed at a

particular facility or institution or to be transferred, or not transferred, from one facility or

institution to another. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244-48 (1983); Meachum v. Fano,

427 U.S. 215, 224-25 (1976); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). 

Nor does an inmate have a constitutional right to any particular classification. Moody v.

Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n.9 (1976); Hernandez v. Johnston, 833 F.2d 1316, 1318 (9th Cir.

1987). Alleged deprivations of rights arising from prison officials’ housing and classification

decisions do not give rise to a federal constitutional claim encompassed by the Fourteenth

Amendment. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569 (1972). State statutes and regulations

Case 2:03-cv-02385-GEB-EFB Document 93 Filed 11/30/06 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

give rise to an interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment only where the restraint on a

prisoner’s liberty “imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the

ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483 (1995). Inmates have no

federal constitutional right to particular procedures established by state law. Toussaint v.

McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 1986). On the basis of these authorities, the court

will deny plaintiff’s request.

On November 7, 2006, plaintiff requested the appointment of counsel. The

United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to

represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296,

298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance

of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.

1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the

court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s motion for the

appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s September 7, 2006, request to be transferred to a different facility is

denied. 

2. Plaintiff’s November 7, 2006, motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: November 29, 2006

Case 2:03-cv-02385-GEB-EFB Document 93 Filed 11/30/06 Page 2 of 2