Anderson v. Grounds

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 9/1/11. (dlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

NOT FOR CITATION

9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

ROBERT ANDERSON,
12

Petitioner,
13

vs.
14
15

R. GROUNDS, Warden,
Respondent.

16

No. C 11-02445 JF (PR)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS;
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

17
18

Petitioner, a California inmate currently incarcerated at the Correctional Training

19

Facility (“CTF”) in Soledad, seeks petition in pro se for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

20

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. For the reasons discussed below,

21

Court concludes that Petitioner is not entitled to relief based on the claim presented and

22

will dismiss the petition.

23

DISCUSSION

24
25
26

A.

Standard of Review
This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person

27

in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court only on the ground that he is in

28

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28
Order Dismissing Petition; Denying COA
P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.11\02445Anderson_dismHC.wpd

1

1

U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975).
A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to

2
3

show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that

4

the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

5

B.

6

Petitioner’s Claims
Petitioner’s sole claim is that prison officials wrongfully denied his request to be

7

transferred to an institution closer to his mother, who is ill and unable to visit him at CTF.

8

(Pet. Attach. at 5.) Petitioner asserts that the denial was not supported by “some

9

evidence” under Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S., 445, 454-56 (1985), and that the prison

10

officials’ denial based on “‘housing and program limits’” was “nothing more than

11

euphemism for overcrowding” rather than “some evidence.” (Id. at 6-7.) Petitioner filed

12

state habeas petitions challenging the denial of a transfer, and the state high court denied

13

review on January 19, 2011. (Pet. Ex. C.)

14

Prisoners have no constitutional right to incarceration in a particular institution.

15

See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244-48 (1983); Meachum, 427 U.S. at 224. A

16

prisoner’s liberty interests are sufficiently extinguished by his conviction that the state

17

may generally confine or transfer him to any of its institutions, to prisons in another state

18

or to federal prisons, without offending the Constitution. See Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d

19

527, 530 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Meachum, 427 U.S. at 225) (intrastate prison transfer

20

does not implicate Due Process Clause), and Olim, 461 U.S. at 244-48 (interstate prison

21

transfer does not implicate Due Process Clause)); see also Stewart v. McManus, 924 F.2d

22

138 (8th Cir. 1991) (no due process rights implicated in transfer from state to federal

23

prison). “It is well settled that the decision where to house inmates is at the core of prison

24

administrators' expertise.” McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 39 (2002).

25

However, changes in conditions so severe as to affect the sentence imposed in an

26

unexpected manner implicate the Due Process Clause itself, whether or not they are

27

authorized by state law. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). Deprivations

28

authorized by state law that are less severe or more closely related to the expected terms
Order Dismissing Petition; Denying COA
P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.11\02445Anderson_dismHC.wpd

2

1

of confinement may also amount to deprivations of a procedurally protected liberty

2

interest, provided that (1) state statutes or regulations narrowly restrict the power of

3

prison officials to impose the deprivation, i.e., give the inmate a kind of right to avoid it,

4

and (2) the liberty in question is one of “real substance.” See id. at 477-87.
Because California has created regulations from which a protected interest in

5
6

transfer within the state prison system could arise, in accord with Sandin the next

7

question must be (1) whether the statutes narrowly restrict the power of prison officials to

8

deny inmates a transfer, and (2) whether the deprivation suffered due to denial of a

9

transfer request is one of “real substance.” In California, there are no substantive

10

limitations on prison officials’ discretion to grant or refuse the transfer of prisoners. See

11

Cal. Penal Code § 5080; Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3379; People v. Lara, 155 Cal. App. 3d

12

570, 575-76 (1984). A provision that merely provides procedural requirements, even if

13

mandatory, cannot provide the basis for a constitutionally protected liberty interest. See

14

Smith v. Noonan, 992 F.2d 987, 989 (9th Cir. 1993). Because the statutory language does

15

not meet the first prong of the Sandin test, no protected liberty interest requiring

16

constitutional protection is created.
Here, the state superior court denied Petitioner’s claim that prison officials abused

17
18

their discretion in refusing his hardship transfer request. (Pet. Ex. A.) The state court

19

found that the denial of the transfer “due to housing and program limits,” was properly

20

within the criteria under Penal Code § 5068, and not an abuse of discretion by the

21

Director. (Id.) As stated above, there are no substantive limitations on prison officials’

22

discretion to deny or grant prison transfers in California. See Cal. Penal Code §

23

5080;Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3379. Moreover, even mandatory procedural

24

requirements does not create a constitutionally protected liberty interest in a transfer to a

25

particular prison. See Noonan, 992 F.2d at 989. Here, there was no violation of any

26

procedural requirements in the denial of Petitioner’s transfer request. Accordingly,

27

Petitioner’s claim must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

28

///
Order Dismissing Petition; Denying COA
P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.11\02445Anderson_dismHC.wpd

3

CONCLUSION

1
2

The Court concludes that Petitioner has failed to show a violation of his federal

3

constitutional rights. Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED

4

for failure to state a claim.

5

Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a certificate of

6

appealability (“COA”) under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) is DENIED because it cannot be said

7

that “reasonable jurists” would find the district court’s assessment of the constitution

8

claims debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 9/1/11
JEREMY FOGEL
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order Dismissing Petition; Denying COA
P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.11\02445Anderson_dismHC.wpd

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT ANDERSON,

Case Number: CV11-02445 JF

Petitioner,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

v.
R. GROUNDS, Warden,
Respondent.

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
9/16/11
That on
, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the
attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)
hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into
an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Robert Anderson
Correctional Training Facility
K-17452
P.O. Box 689 / DW -203
Soledad, CA 93960-0689
Dated:

9/16/11
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk