Brinkley v. Yuba County Superior Court

Filing 9

ORDER denying 8 Motion for injunctive relief signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 05/31/12. Petitioner is granted 45 days from the date of service of this order to file an amended petition (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JAMES A. BRINKLEY,

11

Petitioner,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:12-cv-0386 CKD P

vs.
YUBA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,
Respondent.

ORDER
/

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Although

17

petitioner has been granted leave to file an amended petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, there is

18

currently no petition or complaint before the court. (Dkt. No. 7.)

19

On May 16, 2012, petitioner filed a motion asking that the court issue an order

20

precluding prison officials from transferring him from the California Substance Abuse Treatment

21

Facility. (Dkt. No. 8.) Petitioner claims that when he is transferred, he will “be placed on

22

orientation status and will have no access to a law library”; thus, “a transfer would render it

23

impossible for petitioner to comply” with the deadline for filing an amended petition.

24

In Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976), the United States Supreme Court

25

explicitly held that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to be housed at a particular prison

26

within a state’s prison system. See also Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 530 (9th Cir. 1985)
1

1

(“An inmate’s liberty interests are sufficiently extinguished by his conviction so that the state

2

may change his place of confinement even though the degree of confinement may be different

3

and prison life may be more disagreeable in one institution than in another.”) Petitioner’s motion

4

for injunctive relief is frivolous and will be denied.1

5
6

However, as petitioner claims he will be unable to comply with the deadline for
filing an amended petition, the court will grant petitioner an extension of time to do so.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1. Petitioner’s May 16, 2012 motion for injunctive relief (Dkt. No. 8) is denied;

9

2. Petitioner is granted 45 days from the date of service of this order to file an

10

amended petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Failure to timely file an amended petition will

11

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

12

Dated: May 31, 2012

13

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17

2
brin0386.transfer

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1

25
26

A more fundamental problem with petitioner’s request is that there is no petition or
complaint currently before the court in this action. This court is unable to issue an order against
individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine
Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969).
2