* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** Honorable Michael Burrage, Chief Judge, United Stat es District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, sitting by design ation. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAY 8 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JERRY W. JUDKINS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. TOM BRENNAN; LARRY A. FIELDS; STEVE HARGETT; JOE R. MANNING; CALVINO SAMUEL MUSE, SR.; HUGH REED; WILLIAM R. EVANS; DANIEL BINTZ; PHIL DESSAUER; GREGORY H. HALL,

Defendants-Appellees. No. 96-6316 (D.C. No. CIV-96-148-R) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO and LOGAN, Circuit Judges, and BURRAGE, District Judge. **-2-

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Jerry W. Judkins, an inmate in the Oklaho ma prison system, appeals from a district court order granting summary judgment for defendants in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although plaintiff pursued several claims in district court, he limits this appeal to two issues: (1) whether his transfer from a medium security pri son in Oklahoma to a maximum security prison in Texas, without notice an d a hearing, violated due process; and (2) whether his brief out-of-state inc arceration violated his right of access to the courts because of the allegedly inade quate legal facilities available. On de novo review, Kaul v. Stephan , 83 F.3d 1208, 1212 (10th Cir. 1996), we affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court. The district court rejected plaintiff’s contentions regarding notice and a hearing because his interstate prison transfer did not implicate anydue process guarantees--either directly, as a matter of general constitutional principle, Olim v. Wakinekona , 461 U.S. 238, 244-48 (1983), or indirectly, as a function of specific state-created interests warranting constitutional p rotection, see id. at 248-51. We agree, and add that plaintiff’s attempt to derive a constitutionally cognizable-3-

interest from state law is foreclosed because neith er out-of-state transfer nor maximum security custody “imposes atypical and sign ificant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of pri son life.” Sandin v. Conner , 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2300 (1995); see also Penrod v. Zavaras , 94 F.3d 1399, 1406-07 (10th Cir. 1996). The district court rejected plaintiff’s access-to-c ourt claim because he had not alleged, much less shown, actual prejudice to t he conduct of litigation, which we have required when the alleged lack of access wa s very brief. See Beville v. Ednie , 74 F.3d 210, 213 & n.5 (10th Cir. 1996). The dis trict court’s analysis gains additional support from a recent Supreme Court decision clarifying that, as a general matter, an inmate alleging inadequate leg al resources “must go one step further and demonstrate that the alleged shortcomin gs in the library or legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue a[nonfrivolous] legal claim.” Lewis v. Casey , 116 S. Ct. 2174, 2180 (1996). AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. Entered for the Court James K. Logan Circuit Judge