Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04109/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04109-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. BIRDSONG, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04109-JST (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME; ADRESSING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 44, 45, 46

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, defendants’ motion for an extension of time to file a 

dispositive motion is hereby GRANTED. The deadline for defendants to file a dispositive motion 

is CONTINUED to July 29, 2016. Plaintiff shall file any opposition to defendants’ motion within 

twenty-eight (28) days of the date the motion is filed. Defendants shall file a reply within 

fourteen (14) days of the date the opposition is filed.

Plaintiff has filed a motion to appoint counsel. This is plaintiff’s second request for 

appointment of counsel in this action. For the reasons stated in the Court’s prior order (dkt. no. 

26), plaintiff’s new request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for a court order directing that he be transferred from Kern 

Valley State Prison back to Salinas Valley State Prison, where he was previously approved for 

back surgery. Prisoners have no constitutional right to incarceration in a particular institution. 

See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244-48 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 

(1976). A prisoner’s liberty interests are sufficiently extinguished by his conviction that the state 

may generally confine or transfer him to any of its institutions, or to prisons in another state, 

without offending the Constitution. See Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 530 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Further, if the Court were to grant the request, the Court would be interfering with the ordinary 

Case 3:14-cv-04109-JST Document 48 Filed 07/22/16 Page 1 of 2
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

day-to-day operations of the prison, which generally federal courts are discouraged from doing. 

See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84-85 (1987) (“Running a prison is an inordinately difficult 

undertaking that requires expertise, planning, and the commitment of resources, all of which are 

peculiarly within the province of the legislative and executive branches of government. Prison 

administration is, moreover, a task that has been committed to the responsibility of those branches, 

and separation of powers concerns counsel a policy of judicial restraint.”). Accordingly, 

plaintiff’s request for a court ordered transfer must be DENIED. 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 44, 45, and 46.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2016

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04109-JST Document 48 Filed 07/22/16 Page 2 of 2