Case Name: Wade THORNTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-03
Citations: 430 F. App'x 615
Docket Number: No. 09-15418
Parties: Wade THORNTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 430
Pages: 615–616

Head Matter:
Wade THORNTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-15418.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2011.
Filed May 3, 2011.
Wade Thornton, Represa, CA, pro se.
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Wade Thornton appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking to prevent his transfer to an out-of-state prison. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Thornton's claim that California Penal Code § 11191 vests him with a state-created liberty interest in avoiding an invol untary transfer to an out-of-state prison because the statute has been revised to delete the requirement that such transfers be voluntary. See Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1092 (9th Cir.1986) (a state-created liberty interest ceases to exist if the state repeals the statute or eliminates the regulation creating the liberty interest), abrogated in part on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995).
Thornton's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.