Francis Hannon v. Michael T. Maloney, Peter Allen

Of the Northern District of California, sitting by*
designation.
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 07-1212
FRANCIS HANNON,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
RAYMOND COOK; SEAN MILLIKEN; WAYNE D. CROSBY; LAWRENCE M.
MCARTHUR; KEVIN KING; HENRY LAPLANTE; WILLIAM WHYTE; CHRISTOPHER
DEMARCO; ANGEL PIMENTAL; JOSEPH LODICO; STEVEN BALSAVICH,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MICHAEL T. MALONEY, PETER ALLEN; KRISTIE LADOUCEUR; KENNETH
DEORSEY; PAUL DUFORD; JEFFREY GRIMES; RICHARD MEDEIROS; GILBERT
LEMON, II; JOHN DOES 1-50; JEFFREY BEARD; MARY JANE HESSE;
FREDERICK CALLENDAR; RICHARD MCARTHUR; JAMES V. SULLIVAN; GARY
FYFE; ROBERT KOLBER; HERBERT BERGER-HERSHKOWITZ; MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants, Appellees,
CLARK COLOR LAB; D.S.U. GUARD; VINCENT MOONEY
Defendants.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Lynch, Circuit Judge,
and Schwarzer, District Judge. *

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
Matthew J. Matule with whom David S. Clancy and Benjamin
L. Mack were on brief for appellant.
Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., with whom Claudia M. Tesoro with
whom Calvin R. Koons and John G. Knoor, III were on brief, for
appellees.
September 27, 2007

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
Per Curiam. Hannon appeals from the denial of his
emergency motion for a temporary restraining order enjoining
defendants from involuntarily transferring Hannon from the custody
of the Massachusetts or Pennsylvania Department of Corrections to
any other state. The district court found that Hannon had not
shown that he would suffer irreparable harm from such a transfer.
We find no abuse of discretion. Nor is it apparent that Hannon has
established a likelihood of success on the merits; whatever
restrictions Hannon’s transfers impose on his exercise of First
Amendment rights may well have been within the supervisory
responsibilities of the prison authorities. See; Gomes v. Fair,
738 F.2d 517 (1 Cir.1984)(holding that the decisions of prison st
administrators on matters of security and discipline are entitled
to wide-ranging deference). See also; Hazen v. Reagen, 16 F.3d
921, 926 (8 Cir.1994)(inmate has no reasonable expectation that th
he will be incarcerated at any particular prison).
The issue of the court’s jurisdiction is before the court
in a separate appeal.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --