Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00786/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00786-0/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

ILLYA N. WATKINS

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-786 DFL CMK P

vs.

B. PUHL, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate who has filed this civil rights action together with

a request to proceed in forma pauperis. This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302(b)(21). 

Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit reveals that plaintiff is unable to

afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

The crux of plaintiff’s complaint is that an arson charge on his “jacket” is keeping

him from being eligible to serve his time at a Department of Corrections fire camp. Plaintiff states

that, at the onset of his incarceration, he was placed in North Kern State Prison, which is a

“reception prison” that determines inmates security status and endorses inmates to “parent”

prisons. (Complaint at 6, ¶ 8.) Plaintiff was endorsed to be placed in a fire camp. However, the

Case 2:06-cv-00786-DFL-CMK Document 4 Filed 04/25/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Corrections Center’s Unit Classification Committee stayed plaintiff’s fire camp placement

pending receipt of plaintiff’s July 4, 1988 police report, which charged that plaintiff had used an

explosive device. The use of an explosive device in plaintiff’s arrest history apparently precludes

him from being eligible for placement in a fire camp. Plaintiff alleges that he has appealed his

denial of eligibility and states that he has tried numerous times to obtain a copy of the police

report for defense/appeal purposes. Plaintiff alleges that he is not precluded from placement in a

fire camp because the police report references “sky rockets” which do not meet the Department of

Corrections’ definition of explosive device. 

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, to have the “arson lifted off his jacket” and an

order directing the Department of Corrections to make plaintiff eligible for fire camp. He alleges

that the Department of Corrections’ failure to find him eligible for fire camp violates his Fourth,

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

In order to establish a Fourth Amendment violation, a prisoner must establish that

he has been subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure. See Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d

694, 699 (9th Cir. 1997). Here, plaintiff has made no allegation that he has been subject to an

unreasonable search or seizure. The court finds that plaintiff’s allegations concerning

classification and denial of eligibility for fire camp fail to state a Fourth Amendment claim upon

which relief may be granted.

In order to establish an Eighth Amendment violation a prisoner must demonstrate

that he has been subjected to a cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.

97, 102 (1976). The treatment that a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which

the prisoner is held are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment. See Helling v.

McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993). Conditions of confinement may be harsh, but prison officials

 must provide prisoners with food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care and personal safety. 

See Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986). The Eighth Amendment is not

a mandate for broad prison reform or excessive judicial involvement in prison matters. 

Case 2:06-cv-00786-DFL-CMK Document 4 Filed 04/25/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982). 

Here, plaintiff makes no allegation that he has been denied food, clothing, shelter,

sanitation, medical care or personal safety. Instead, plaintiff’s only complaint is that due to his

arrest for having an explosive device that he is not eligible for fire camp. The court finds that

plaintiff’s allegations concerning his classification and denial of eligibility for fire camp fail to

state an Eighth Amendment Claim upon which relief may be granted.

To establish a Fourteenth Amendment claim, a prisoner must demonstrate

violation of a protected interest. 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. See 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. See

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

regulations 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.” See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483 (1995). 

Inmates have no federal constitutional right to particular procedures established by state law. See 

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

authorities, the court finds that plaintiff’s allegations concerning classification and denial of

eligibility for fire camp fail to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim upon which relief may be

granted.

Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be

cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of

Case 2:06-cv-00786-DFL-CMK Document 4 Filed 04/25/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $0.03. All fees shall be collected and paid in

accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California Department of Corrections

filed concurrently herewith.

IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed for failure to state

a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

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

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

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

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

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

DATED: April 20, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00786-DFL-CMK Document 4 Filed 04/25/06 Page 4 of 4