grant defendant's motion, we must find, after viewing all issues and resolving all doubts in favor of the plaintiff, that the complaint states no valid claim for relief. 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1357 (1969). In this case, that standard is clearly met and we will dismiss the complaint as to defendant Specter.
It is clear that a prison transfer such as had occurred here violates no constitutional right of plaintiff and his Civil Rights Action must fail on this ground alone. United States ex rel. Stuart v. Yeager, 293 F. Supp. 1079 (D.N.J. 1968), affirmed 419 F.2d 126 (3d Cir. 1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 1055, 90 S. Ct. 1400, 25 L. Ed. 2d 673 (1970). See also Petition of Peiffer, 193 Pa. Super. 476, 166 A. 2d 325 (1960).
Further, the authority to transfer prisoners in Pennsylvania does not reside with any district attorney and hence, if plaintiff Thomas wishes to complain of a prison transfer, it would appear that District Attorney Specter is an inappropriate party to name as a defendant. 61 Pa. Stat. Ann. §§ 72-82.
With regard to injunctive relief, it would appear that this case has been mooted by the retransfer, according to defendant Specter, of plaintiff Thomas to the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh. Since the original transfer from Pittsburgh was plaintiff's sole ground for complaint against defendant Specter, the retransfer should entirely remove plaintiff's source of complaint.
With respect to the possibility that plaintiff may be seeking damages from the defendant, District Attorney Arlen Specter is clearly immune from suit when acting, as here, in his capacity as a state official. Gaito v. Ellenbogen, 425 F.2d 845 (3d Cir. 1970).
Accordingly, we will grant defendant's motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).