Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01036/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01036-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

DONALD GENE PHILLIPS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV-S-07-1036 LKK EFB PS

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________________/

On December 27, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. No objections were filed.

 Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v.

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.

Just prior to publication of the Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff filed an

“emergency ex parte application” in which seeks an order excluding him from “any and all

Case 2:07-cv-01036-LKK -EFB Document 62 Filed 02/26/08 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

consideration for out-of-state-transfer” and transferring him from the California Men’s Colony to 

Folsom State Prison. Although this order remanding this action to state court moots all pending

motions, plaintiff’s ex parte motion should nonetheless be denied on its merits. A prisoner does

not have a constitutional right to be housed at a particular facility. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S.

215, 224 (1976); Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245-49 (1983). Plaintiff merely alleges the

possibility of a transfer. Moreover, he does not allege that the potential transfer is retaliatory or

otherwise designed to penalize him. See Fajeriak v. McGinnis, 493 F.2d 468, 470 (9th Cir.

1974). Accordingly, plaintiff’s ex parte application for injunctive relief is denied. 

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed December 27, 2007, are

ADOPTED; 

2. This action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California in

and for the County of Sacramento; and

3. Plaintiff’s ex parte application for injunctive relief is denied.

DATED: February 25, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01036-LKK -EFB Document 62 Filed 02/26/08 Page 2 of 2