Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00500/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00500-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GIOVANNI MCDOWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEVE SMITH, et al.,

 Defendants.

No. 1:24-cv-00500-SAB (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

SEND PLAINTIFF COURTESY COPY OF 

THE COMPLAINT AND COURT’S 

SCREENING ORDER AND GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF THIRTY DAYS TO FILE AN 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF Nos. 1, 8, 11)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on April 26, 2024.

On May 23, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint, found no cognizable claims, 

and granted Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 8.) 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s notice that he has been transferred to Riverside 

County Jail on an unrelated criminal case, filed June 24, 2024. Plaintiff submits that was initially 

told he would be transferred back and forth from Riverside County Jail and California State 

Prison-Sacramento. (ECF No. 11.) However, Plaintiff was subsequently advised that he would 

remain at the jail for the duration of his pending criminal prosecution. (Id.) Plaintiff indicates 

that he was transferred without his legal property and he cannot meet the current deadline to 

Case 1:24-cv-00500-SAB Document 12 Filed 06/26/24 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

amend the complaint. (Id.) 

As an initial matter, “[i]t is well settled that the decision where to house inmates is at the 

core of prison administrators’ expertise.” McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 39 (2002). Prisoners 

have no constitutional right to incarceration in a particular institution. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 

461 U.S. 238, 244-48 (1983). A prisoner’s liberty interests are sufficiently extinguished by his 

conviction such that the state may generally confine or transfer him to any of its institutions, to 

prisons in another state or to federal prisons, without offending the Constitution. See Rizzo v. 

Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 530 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Meachum, 427 U.S. at 225) (holding intrastate 

prison transfer does not implicate Due Process Clause), and Olim, 461 U.S. at 244-48 (holding 

interstate prison transfer does not implicate Due Process Clause). A non-consensual transfer is 

not per se violative of either due process or equal protection rights, see Johnson v. Moore, 948 

F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991); Stinson v. Nelson, 525 F.2d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 1975), and no due 

process protections such as notice or a hearing need be afforded before a prisoner is transferred, 

even if the transfer is for disciplinary reasons or to a considerably less favorable institution, see

Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242 (1976); Johnson, 948 F.2d at 519; see also Coakley v. 

Murphy, 884 F.2d 1218, 1221 (9th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, Plaintiff has no constitutional right 

to be transferred back to California State Prison, Sacramento. 

With regard to Plaintiff’s lack of legal property, in the interest of justice, the Court will 

send Plaintiff a copy of his original complaint, the Court’s May 23, 2024 screening order, and a 

blank copy of civil rights complaint form to allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint in this 

action. However, as noted in the Court’s first informational order, generally, “[t]he Court will not 

make copies of filed documents or provide postage or envelopes for free even for parties 

proceeding in forma pauperis.” (ECF No. 4, p. 3). Rather, the Clerk charges $.50 per copied 

page. See Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees ¶ 4; 28 U.S.C. § 1914. In this instance, the 

Court will make a one-time exception and send Plaintiff courtesy copies of the relevant 

documents. grant Plaintiff's request one more time and direct the Clerk to mail Plaintiff a 

courtesy copy of his first amended complaint along with this order. However, Plaintiff will be 

required to pay for further requests for copies from the Court.

Case 1:24-cv-00500-SAB Document 12 Filed 06/26/24 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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of Court shall send Plaintiff a courtesy copy of the original complaint 

(ECF No. 1), the Court’s May 23, 2024 screening order (ECF No. 8), and a blank 

civil rights complaint form; 

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the 

Court will recommend to a district judge that this action be dismissed for failure to 

state a cognizable claim for relief, failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a 

court order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00500-SAB Document 12 Filed 06/26/24 Page 3 of 3