Unpublished Disposition, 895 F.2d 1417 (9th Cir. 1990)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 895 F.2d 1417 (9th Cir. 1990)

William P. HOBSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Samuel LEWIS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 88-15763.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 12, 1989.* Decided Feb. 6, 1990.

Before POOLE, REINHARDT and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

This is an appeal from the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff is an inmate incarcerated in the Arizona State Prison system. He alleges that he was improperly transferred from one Arizona prison institution to another without a reclassification hearing and seeks damages and injunctive relief.

The plaintiff does not have a Fourteenth Amendment interest in being placed at a particular institution. "The Constitution does not require that the State have more than one prison for convicted felons; ... Neither, in our view, does the Due Process Clause in and of itself protect a duly convicted prisoner against transfer from one institution to another within the state prison system." Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-25 (1976). An alternative ground for the plaintiff's claim could be a state-created right which cannot be arbitrarily abrogated. Id. at 226. However, under Arizona State Law, the Director of the Department of Corrections "may ... [t]ransfer adult inmates between adult institutions or adult facilities." Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. Sec. 41-1604(B) (2) (e) (1985). Like the New York state statute in Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 243 (1976), the Arizona "statute imposes no conditions on the discretionary power to transfer." An Arizona state court interpreting this statute held that " [s]ince Sec. 41-1604(B) (2) (e) places discretion for such decisions in the director, it does not create a liberty interest, and appellant has not stated a claim for relief." Lawrence v. Arizona Dept. of Corrections, 151 Ariz. 599, 729 P.2d 953, 954 (Ariz.Ct.App.1986). Accordingly, the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss is

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 36-3