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 (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.