Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02321/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02321-0/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FELIX ESPINO, JR., Civil No. 05cv2321-WQH(POR)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR TRANSFER

[Doc. No. 33]

v.

CITY OF CHULA VISTA,

Defendant.

Plaintiff is state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 8, 2007, Plaintiff filed a request for transfer to a different

institution. Plaintiff requests a transfer because (1) conducting discovery from his present institution

is difficult as a pro se litigant, (2) he has limited access to the telephone, and (3) he has limited

access to the law library. 

Prisoners have no constitutional right to incarceration in a particular institution. 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 without offending the Constitution. See

Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 530 (9th Cir. 1985) (intrastate prison transfer does not implicate

Due Process Clause). 

Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S.

343, 346 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). However, the right of access to the

Case 3:05-cv-02321-WQH-POR Document 36 Filed 01/17/07 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

27

28

- 2 -

courts is only a right to bring complaints to the federal court and not a right to discover such claims

or to litigate them effectively once filed with a court. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 354-55; Madrid v.

Gomez, 190 F.3d 990, 995 (9th Cir. 1999); Cornett v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 1995)

(“[W]e conclude the Supreme Court has clearly stated that the constitutional right of access requires

a state to provide a law library or legal assistance only during the pleading stage of a habeas or civil

rights action.”).

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to incarceration in a particular institution. While

Plaintiff asserts that conducting discovery at his present institution would be difficult, Plaintiff’s

constitutional right of access to the courts does not include a right to discover his claims or to litigate

them effectively once his complaint is filed with the court. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for

transfer is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 17, 2007

LOUISA S PORTER

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: District Judge

All parties

Case 3:05-cv-02321-WQH-POR Document 36 Filed 01/17/07 Page 2 of 2