United States District Court, E.D. California
ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is a state prisoner at Solano State Prison under the
authority of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR). Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma
pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. A settlement conference is scheduled in
this case on October 31, 2019.
has filed a “Motion to Stay Prison Transfer, ”
noting CDCR's intent “to transfer Plaintiff from
Solano State Prison to Pleasant Valley State Prison to work
in the Offenders Mentor Certified Program (OMCP).” ECF
No. 44 at 1. Plaintiff asks the court to stay his anticipated
transfer because it may impede his settlement negotiations
with defense counsel, and “[m]edically, additional
transfers and extending the amount of time in transit, adds
additional pain and suffering on Plaintiff and current
medical status regarding back pain.” Id. at 2.
Plaintiff also notes that his transfer will place additional
burdens on state resources to transport him to a more distant
settlement conference. Id. at 1-2. Accordingly,
plaintiff seeks a “temporary stay of transfer pending
the completion of the instant court proceedings after which
 Plaintiff welcomes the opportunity to transfer to
institutions where he may appl[y] the trade that has been
gifted him by the state.” Id. at 2.
explained below, the court has no authority to postpone
plaintiff's transfer to another California prison.
However, in light of plaintiff's medical concerns, he
will be provided the option of requesting that he appear at
the October 31, 2019 settlement conference by video.
The Court Has No. Authority to Postpone Plaintiff's
is informed that there is no legal authority supporting his
efforts to postpone his transfer to another California
prison. Prisoners have no due process right to placement in a
particular correctional facility, or to prevent their
transfer to other facilities. As explained by the Supreme
[G]iven a valid conviction, the criminal defendant has been
constitutionally deprived of his liberty to the extent that
the State may confine him and subject him to the rules of its
prison system so long as the conditions of confinement do not
otherwise violate the Constitution. The Constitution does not
. . . guarantee that the convicted prisoner will be placed in
any particular prison. . . . The initial decision to assign
the convict to a particular institution is not subject to
audit under the Due Process Clause, although the degree of
confinement in one prison may be quite different from that in
another. The conviction has sufficiently extinguished the
defendant's liberty interest to empower the State to
confine him in any of its prisons.
Neither . . . 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.
Confinement in any of the State's institutions is within
the normal limits or range of custody which the conviction
has authorized the State to impose. That life in one prison
is much more disagreeable than in another does not in itself
signify that a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest is
implicated when a prisoner is transferred to the institution
with the more severe rules.
Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-5 (1976). For
these reasons, plaintiff's motion must be denied.
Plaintiff May Request That He Appear at the Settlement
Conference by Video
settlement conference scheduled for October 31, 2019 will be
the second mediation in this case. The first conference was
held on March 22, 2019, and plaintiff appeared by video at
his request. See ECF No. 33. The pending settlement
conference was scheduled without providing plaintiff the
option of appearing by video. Plaintiff will now be provided
that option. Plaintiff is directed to complete and file the
attached notice within fourteen (14) days after service of
this order, indicating whether he prefers to appear at the
October 31, 2019 conference in person or by video, if
available. If plaintiff chooses to proceed by
videoconference, and the equipment is available, the court
will re-issue the operative writ ad testificandum. If
plaintiff does not timely return the notice, the writ ad
testificandum for his personal appearance will remain in
for the foregoing reasons, IT ...