IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40118
Conference Calendar
DALE N. SMITH,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
PERCY PITZER, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:98-CV-1892
--------------------
August 26, 1999
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dale N. Smith, federal inmate # 90045-132, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition.
Smith’s motion for a ruling on appeal is DENIED.
Smith asserts that he was given a “disciplinary type
transfer” from a medium security facility in Tucson, Arizona, to
a high security facility in Beaumont, Texas, which violated his
constitutional rights. Smith asserts that he was entitled to due
process before he was transferred. Smith also asserts that the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 99-40118
-2-
district court should have conducted a hearing prior to
dismissing his petition. Smith asserted in the district court
that his transfer was done for retaliatory reasons. Smith does
not brief the retaliation issue in this court, and, thus, he has
abandoned it. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.
1993).
Smith has not shown that the Bureau of Prison’s conduct in
transferring him from the prison in Tucson to the prison in
Beaumont violated his constitutional rights. See Olim v.
Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244-45, 250-51 (1983)(prisoners do not
have a constitutional right to be housed in any particular
facility or in any particular state); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S.
215, 228 (1976)(prison officials have discretion to transfer
inmates; such transfers do not invoke the protections of
procedural due process). Smith has no constitutional right
protecting him against a change in custody classification. See
Moody v. Baker, 857 F.2d 256, 257-58 (5th Cir. 1988).
The district court did not err in denying Smith’s petition
without conducting a hearing. See United States v. Tubwell, 37
F.3d 175, 179 (5th Cir. 1994)(evidentiary hearing is not required
when legal claims can be resolved without the taking of
additional evidence).
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.