Hannon v. Maloney, No. 07-1212 (1st Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 07-1212 FRANCIS HANNON, Plaintiff, Appellant, RAYMOND COOK; SEAN MILLIKEN;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. * Of the designation. Northern District of California, sitting by 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- Per emergency Curiam. motion for Hannon a appeals temporary from the restraining denial order of his 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. established a likelihood of Nor is it apparent that Hannon has success on the merits; whatever restrictions Hannon s transfers impose on his exercise of First Amendment rights may well have been within responsibilities of the prison authorities. the supervisory See; Gomes v. Fair, 738 F.2d 517 (1st Cir.1984)(holding that the decisions of prison administrators on matters of security and discipline are entitled to wide-ranging deference). See also; Hazen v. Reagen, 16 F.3d 921, 926 (8th Cir.1994)(inmate has no reasonable expectation that 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-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.