Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00124/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00124-7/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

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS R. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00124-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 21)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN

CLAIMS (Doc. 19)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO

FILE A SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 

Plaintiff Marcus R. Williams (“plaintiff”) is a state

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

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

On June 9, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that an objection to the Findings

and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. After

obtaining an extension of time, plaintiff filed an objection to

the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations on July 31,

2006.

Case 1:05-cv-00124-AWI-SMS Document 25 Filed 09/18/06 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

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a de

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be

supported by the record and by proper analysis. In the

objections, Plaintiff asks for an opportunity to file a second

amended complaint. Pursuant to the Findings and

Recommendations, this court is granting Plaintiff leave to file a

second amended complaint. As explained in more detail by the

Magistrate Judge, leave to amend on the due process claim will

not be granted because prisoners do not have a constitutional

right, grounded in the Due Process Clause itself, to be

incarcerated at a particular correctional facility, to be

transferred from one facility to another, to participate in

rehabilitative programs, or to a prison job. See Meachum v.

Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-25 (1976); Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78,

88 n.9 (1976); Vignolo v. Miller, 120 F.3d 1075, 1077 (9th Cir.

1997); Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 530-31 (9th Cir. 1985). In

addition, prisoners have no liberty interest in earning work time

credits. Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1094-95 (9th Cir.

1986). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 9, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Plaintiff’s due process and denial of access to the

courts claims are DISMISSED, with prejudice, for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted;

Case 1:05-cv-00124-AWI-SMS Document 25 Filed 09/18/06 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

3. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint as to

his equal protection and denial of adequate outdoor

exercise claims only within thirty (30) days from the

date of service of this order; and

4. If plaintiff’s second amended complaint contains any

claims other than his equal protection and denial of

adequate outdoor exercise claims, it will be stricken

from the record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00124-AWI-SMS Document 25 Filed 09/18/06 Page 3 of 3