Tilton v. Brown, et. al.

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/5/14 ORDERING that 17 Motion seeking an order prohibiting his transfer from the La Palma Correctional Center 17 is DENIED as moot.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL TILTON,

12
13

No. 2:12-cv-02020 LKK DAD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

14

EDMUND G. BROWN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner incarcerated at the La Palma Correctional Center in

18

Eloy, Arizona, is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

Before the court is plaintiff’s motion seeking an emergency stay of his transfer to another

20

institution.

21

In his motion, plaintiff seeks an order prohibiting “defendants . . . and any other agents of

22

the State of California” from attempting to transfer plaintiff from the La Palma Correctional

23

Center. (ECF No. 17 at 3.) Plaintiff contends that the requested court order is necessary because

24

he has a motion for stay and abeyance pending before the court while issues relating to the matter

25

of his filing fee, the court’s jurisdiction over this action, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and

26

plaintiff’s citizenship are resolved. Plaintiff also contends that he has been notified that on

27

November 21, 2013, a hearing will be held to determine if he will be transferred from La Palma

28

to a California institution. Plaintiff asserts the following concerning his “removal” from the La
1

1

Palma Correctional Center:

2

[A]ny forceful removal of the person of Plaintiff . . . would be a
violation of the federal kidnapping act, 18 U.S.C. § 1201, et. seq.,
and would constitute the unlawful removal of the person of Plaintiff
from his place of residence for the purpose of interfering with the
performance of the function of this Court.

3
4
5
6

(Id.)
On January 9, 2014, the assigned District Judge denied plaintiff’s motion for

7

reconsideration, including plaintiff’s motion for a stay of this action. (ECF No. 18.) Therefore,

8

plaintiff’s motion for an emergency stay based upon the pendency of his motion for a stay and

9

abeyance has been rendered moot. In addition, the undersigned notes that plaintiff has no

10

constitutional right to be housed at a specific facility. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-

11

25 (1976) (Holding that the Constitution does not “guarantee that the convicted prisoner will be

12

placed in any particular prison” and neither does it “protect a duly convicted prisoner against

13

transfer from one institution to another[.]”).

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's November 25, 2013 motion

15

seeking an order prohibiting his transfer from the La Palma Correctional Center (ECF No. 17) is

16

denied as moot. In the interest of justice, plaintiff is granted additional time to file his amended

17

complaint as ordered by the assigned District Judge in the order filed January 9, 2014. (ECF No.

18

18.) If he wishes to pursue this action, plaintiff shall file his amended complaint on or before

19

February 26, 2014. In the alternative, he may request voluntary dismissal of this action. If

20

plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal by February 26,

21

2014, the undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and

22

failure to abide by the court’s orders.

23

Dated: February 5, 2014

24
25

DAD:4
tilt2020.stay

26
27
28
2