Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00868/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00868-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS ARNULFO VILLEGAS,

Petitioner,

v.

A.K. SCRIBNER,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 05-0868 REC DLB HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 1]

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on July 5, 2005. Petitioner

contends that he has been wrongfully and maliciously separated from federal prisoners as a result

of fabricated allegations by federal officials and was denied due process when he was unlawfully

transferred to a state facility without notice and the opportunity to be heard.

Petitioner contends that in December 1996, he was involved in an altercation with another

inmate while I was housed in Lompoc Federal Prison. Petitioner indicates that he was convicted

and sentenced to do federal time for this assault by the United States District Court for the

Central District of California. Petitioner indicates that at the sentencing phase, a presentence

report indicated that he was in protective custody because he was a member of the Mexican

Mafia. It was further alleged that his life was in danger because of a failed attempt to carry out

some type of assault on another inmate. Petitioner contends that it is unclear what the allegations

Case 1:05-cv-00868-REC-DLB Document 5 Filed 09/08/05 Page 1 of 3
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

27

28

1

 Even if this Court construed this action as an action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics

Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the Court would reach the same result. 

2

are based on and no documentation has ever been made available to indicate the source of the

information or if it actually exists. Petitioner indicates that at the conclusion of his sentencing,

he was remanded to federal custody to continue serving his sentence in Lompoc’s control

segregation unit. Then on October 16, 1999, he was transferred to the California Department of

Corrections. 

 Petitioner has no constitutional right to imprisonment in a particular prison, federal or

state. Prison inmates do not have a constitutional right to be incarcerated at a particular

correctional facility or to be transferred from one facility to another. White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d

1002 (9th Cir. 2004) (Habeas petitioner’s challenge to the administrative decision transferring

him from one prison facility to another in a different state failed because a prisoner does not have

a constitutional right to imprisonment in a specific prison.); see also Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S.

215, 224-25 (1976); Olim V. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (1983).1 Because Petitioner has no

protected interest in being housed in any particular institution, the action must be dismissed.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of

habeas corpus be DISMISSED.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-

304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after

///

///

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00868-REC-DLB Document 5 Filed 09/08/05 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

3

service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

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: September 7, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00868-REC-DLB Document 5 Filed 09/08/05 Page 3 of 3