Opinion
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Decided March 7, 1989.
Memorandum Withdrawn April 4, 1990, for Superseding Opinion See 1990 WL 40251.
D. Ariz.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REMANDED IN PART.
On Appeal From the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. William P. Copple, District Judge, Presiding.
Before FLETCHER and BEEZER, Circuit Judges, and SAMUEL P. KING District Judge.
The Honorable Samuel P. King, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir.R. 36-3.
In this consolidated appeal, Richard Parson appeals pro se the denial of preliminary injunctive relief and the grant of summary judgment against hisBivens 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,' the reasons for entering summary judgment must be stated somewhere in the record. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) does not relieve the trial court of this burden." Van Bourg, Allen, Weinberg & Rogers v. NLRB, 656 F.2d 1356, 1357 (9th Cir.1981) (per curiam) (citation omitted).
The district court's order, in its entirety, reads:
The Court has reviewed the voluminous files herein and it is ordered:
Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted. The Clerk will enter judgment accordingly. Further motions herein by the plaintiff will not be entertained. This case is closed in this Court.
We cannot ascertain the district court's reasoning from this order. Accordingly, we remand "so the district court may state in reasonable detail the reasons for its decision." Van Bourg, 656 F.2d at 1358.
AFFIRMED in part, REMANDED in part.