Unpublished Disposition, 933 F.2d 1018 (9th Cir. 1991)
Annotate this CaseTimothy WATTS, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Manfred MAASS, Superintendent of the Oregon StatePenitentiary, Fred B. Pearce, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 90-35798.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 9, 1991.* Decided May 13, 1991.
Before JAMES R. BROWNING, GOODWIN and POOLE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Timothy Watts, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Gobel v. Maricopa County, 867 F.2d 1201, 1203 (9th Cir. 1989), and we affirm.
Watts contends he was denied due process and equal protection of the law because the defendants failed or refused to adjust his security classification to allow him to be placed in a minimum security facility. This contention lacks merit.
A prisoner has no constitutional right to a particular classification status. Hernandez v. Johnston, 833 F.2d 1316, 1318 (9th Cir. 1987). The Oregon Administrative Regulations contain no mandatory language which limits the discretion of the defendants in deciding a prisoner's classification status, and thus creates no right to a particular status. See Oregon Admin.Reg. Secs. 291-104-005-015; see also Hernandez, 833 F.2d at 1318. Moreover, a prisoner has no due process right to be housed in the institution of his choice. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245-19 (1983). Finally, Watts has alleged no allegations which would give rise to an equal protection claim. Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing Watts's action.1
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
Watts filed two opening briefs in this action. His second opening brief, received after appellees had filed their answering brief, was construed by this court as Watts's reply brief. Watts attempts to raise issues which he failed to raise in the first opening brief. Thus, we deem these issues abandoned and decline to address them. See Eberle v. City of Anaheim, 901 F.2d 814 (9th Cir. 1990)
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
