ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner claims that his right to due process has been violated by placement in administrative detention and planned transfer to a different federal prison.*fn2 This matter is before the court on respondent's motion to dismiss. Respondent seeks dismiss on the grounds that (1) petitioner has no liberty interest in the placement decisions at issue in the instant action; (2) petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; and (3) the petition is moot.
The record contains the following evidence relevant to the motion at bar. Petitioner is serving a federal prison sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the District of Montana. Prior to filing the instant action, petitioner had been housed at FCI Herlong for six years. In January 2012, petitioner was moved from the general population at FCI Herlong to administrative detention. He was the subject of an investigation which "concluded that his behavior towards female staff in the unit was such that female staff members were uncomfortable in his presence and felt unsafe because they believed he had developed an inappropriate fixation with two female staff members at FCI Herlong, . . . ." Declaration of Curtis Finch, filed July 3, 2012, at ¶ 5. The investigation did not lead to disciplinary proceedings. See id. at ¶ 4. At the conclusion of the investigation, Curtis Finch, a Case Manager at FCI Herlong, was "informed that it was appropriate to submit a transfer request" for petitioner. Id. Mr. Finch prepared the request, which was submitted in March 2012 to the Designation Center in Grand Prairie, Texas. Id. On April 25, 2012, petitioner was transferred to FCI Florence, Colorado. Id.
Prison inmates have no liberty interest in freedom from transfer between prisons. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976). Nor does placement in administrative segregation for non-punitive reasons implicate a liberty interest protected by the due process clause. See May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 565 (9th Cir. 1997). For this reason, respondent's motion to dismiss should be granted and this action should be dismissed.*fn3
Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Warden of FCI Herlong is substituted in as respondent in place of former FCI Herlong Warden Richard B. Ives;
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign this action to a United States District Judge;
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Respondent's July 3, 2012 motion to dismiss be granted; and
2. This action be dismissed
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to ...