Stephen P. Dowdney, Jr. v. James E. Thatcher;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEPHEN P. DOWDNEY, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES E. THATCHER; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-35522
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00337-LRS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Lonny R. Suko, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Stephen P. Dowdney, Jr., a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from
the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to
state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo
the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Barren v. Harrington,
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-35522 2
152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v.
Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Dowdney does not have a liberty
interest in avoiding transfer to an out-of-state prison because such a transfer does
not impose an “atypical and significant” hardship in relation to the ordinary
incidents of prison life. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995); see also Olim
v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 247 (1983) (“Confinement in another state . . . is
within the normal limits or range of custody which the conviction has authorized
the State to impose”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Dowdney’s contention that Washington Revised Code section 72.68.010
created a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause is unpersuasive. See
White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1013 (9th Cir. 2004) (overruled on other
grounds by Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc)) (noting
that the Washington Supreme Court explicitly upheld the Washington Department
of Corrections’ authority under state law to authorize a transfer to an out-of-state
privately-run prison).
Dowdney’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Dowdney’s motion filed on June 22, 2009 is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --