protect a duly convicted prisoner against transfer from one institution to an other within the state prison system. Confinement in any of the State’s institutions is within the normal limits or range of custody which the conviction has authorized the State to impose. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. at 225, 96 S.Ct. 2532. Accord Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983) (“Just as an inmate has no justifiable expectation that he will be incarcerated in any particular prison within a State, he has no justifiable expectation that he will be incarcerated in any particular State.”). Most cases discussing prisoners’ Fourth Amendment challenges address searches of the prisoner’s cell. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (<HOLDING>); Christopher v. Gomez, 67 F.3d 306 (9th
holding that prisoners do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cells holding that bodycavity searches of prisoners are not unreasonable holding that prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their prison cells holding that prisoners have no legitimate expectation of privacy and that the fourth amendments prohibition on unreasonable searches does not apply in prison cells holding that forfeiture statute is subject to the fourth amendments prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures