Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06030/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06030-12/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

GREGORY McKINNEY,

Plaintiff, CV F 04 6030 LJO WMW P 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

 RE MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

 (DOCS 28, 29 )

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff has filed two motions for injunctive relief. Plaintiff seeks an order

transferring him to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, and another order preventing his transfer

from CCI Tehachapi to Pelican Bay State Prison.

This action proceeds against Defendant Correctional Officers Casey and

Buentiempo for allegedly depriving Plaintiff of outdoor exercise while he was housed at

Tehachapi. A transfer to the custody of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons is beyond the scope of

the claims in this case. Further, prisoners have no liberty interest in avoiding being

transferred to another prison. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983);

Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225-227(1976); United States v. Brown, 59 F.3d 102, 105

(9 Cir. 1995). Additionally, Plaintiff does not provide any evidence that any named

th

defendant has the authority to direct such a transfer. There are no named defendants in

Case 1:04-cv-06030-SMM Document 41 Filed 09/04/07 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

this case that have the authority to direct a transfer. The court must have personal

jurisdiction over the parties to be enjoined; it may not enjoin defendants not yet served or before

the court. Zepeda v. United States I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9 Cir. 1983). th

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions for

injunctive relief be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within

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

written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time waives all objections to the judge’s findings of fact. See

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9 Cir. 1998). Failure to file objections within the th

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 4, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06030-SMM Document 41 Filed 09/04/07 Page 2 of 2