Full text
Walkenbach v. Hawk
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 27 1999 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk
JOHN WALKENBACH
Plaintiff-Appellant, Case No. 99-3032 v. (D.C. CIV-98-3181-CIV) KATHLEEN M. HAWK; JANET RENO; (District of Kansas) G. L. HERSCHBERGER; J.W. BOOKER; WALTER C. CLARK; MARNE BOYLE, EARL H. ANDERSON, and BOB BOSTON Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, BALDOCK, and HENRY, Circuit Judges,
John Walkenbach, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Mr. Walkenbach alleged that the denial of his request for a transfer to the federal correctional facility in El Reno, Oklahoma violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
protection.1
We agree with the district court that prisoners “enjoy no constitutional right to placement in any particular penal institution.” See Rec. doc. 15, at 2 (citing Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244-48 (1983)); see also Brown-Bey v. United States, 720 F.2d 467, 470 (7th Cir. 1983) (“Due process does not require a hearing before federal prisoners may be transferred from one federal correctional institution to another.”). Here, Mr. Walkenbach has not alleged that his request for a transfer was denied on the basis of a constitutionally impermissible motive. Instead, he argues that other inmates have been granted transfers and that his mother’s illness constitutes a valid reason for transferring him to the Oklahoma facility. These allegations are insufficient to state a claim for violation of the federal constitution.
1 After examining the briefs and the appellate record, the panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. Fed. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Walkenbach’s complaint.2
Entered for the Court,
Robert H. Henry Circuit Judge
2 In light of our resolution of the merits of this appeal, we deny Mr. Walkenbach’s “Motion To Issue Order To All Defendants Not To Transfer Plaintiff Or Any Other Retaliatory Action Be Taken Against Plaintiff For Submitting This Civil Rights Action And Request To Seal This Document.”