Parson v. Carlson, s. 87-15061

• Decision Date: 15 December 1988
• Docket Number: 88-1647,Nos. 87-15061,s. 87-15061
• Citation: 869 F.2d 1497
• Parties: Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Richard R. PARSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. PETER CARLSON, Warden; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondents-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 1497

869 F.2d 1497

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Richard R. PARSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. PETER CARLSON, Warden; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondents-Appellees.

Nos. 87-15061, 88-1647.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 15, 1988. ^*

Decided March 7, 1989.

Memorandum Withdrawn April 4, 1990, for Superseding Opinion

Before FLETCHER and BEEZER, Circuit Judges, and SAMUEL P. KING ^** District Judge.

MEMORANDUM ^***

In this consolidated appeal, Richard Parson appeals pro se the denial of preliminary injunctive relief and the grant of summary judgment against his Bivens claims. Parson, a federal prisoner, complained that he was denied access to the courts, was denied medical treatment, was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and was subjected to retaliatory transfers. We review denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. Arcamuzi v. Continental Airlines, 819 F.2d 935, 936 (9th Cir.1987). A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Darring v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874, 876 (9th Cir.1986). We affirm the denial of preliminary injunctive relief and remand the grant of summary judgment to the district court for an explanation of its decision.

I

Parson has been a federal prisoner since June of 1981. In early 1983 he cooperated with FBI officials by providing information on organized crime. Shortly after providing this information, the FBI interview sheet appeared in the prison's general compound. Parson was subsequently transferred to another institution, where the interview sheet reappeared. Parson has since been transferred to a number of institutions. After each transfer, the interview sheet has resurfaced.

Parson has been involved in other actions. He sued two officers for use of excessive force; one officer was ordered to pay nominal damages. He has also been involved in a number of disciplinary proceedings.

II

In denying Parson's request for a preliminary injunction, the district court adopted the magistrate's findings and recommendation. The magistrate found that Parson had not shown a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits.

A prisoner "has no justifiable expectation that he will be incarcerated in any particular state." Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983). We have previously stated that an "inmate's liberty interests are sufficiently extinguished by his conviction so that the state may change his place of confinement even though the degree of confinement may be different and prison life may be more disagreeable." Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 530 (9th Cir.1985).

Both Parson and the government have provided evidence to show that the transfers were necessary to protect Parson. Even if Parson substantiated his allegations that the transfers were retaliatory, there is little doubt that the government would be able to show by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have transferred Parson anyway for completely valid reasons. See Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 (1977).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Parson's request for a preliminary injunction.

III

Although the district court is not required to make findings of fact when considering a motion for summary judgment, statements of its reasoning are helpful to assist review on appeal. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-50 & n. 6 (1986). "When the district court's 'underlying holdings would otherwise be ambiguous or inascertainable,'...