In Meachum v. Fano (1976) 427 U.S. 215, the Supreme Court further delineated the scope of the due process right retained by a prisoner, this time in connection with changes in conditions of confinement. In Meachum, the court held that the Constitution does not require that a fact finding hearing be held in connection with the transfer between prison facilities within the State of Massachusetts, even though the transfer is to a less favorable maximum-security institution. The court stated that, "Given a valid conviction, the criminal defendant has been constitutionally deprived of his liberty to the extent that the State may confine him and subject him to the rules of its prison system so long as the conditions of confinement do not otherwise violate the Constitution.... The initial decision to assign the convict to a particular institution is not subject to audit under the Due Process Clause, although the degree of confinement in one prison may be quite different from that in another. The conviction has sufficiently extinguished the defendant's liberty interest to empower the State to confine him in any of its prisons.... 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, supra , 427 U.S. 215, 224-225.) The court noted that transfers between institutions are made for a variety of reasons and may involve no more than "informed predictions as to what would best serve institutional security or the safety and welfare of the inmate," and that Massachusetts law had conferred no right on the prisoner to remain in the prison to which he was initially assigned. ( Meachum v. Fano, supra, 427 U.S. 215, 225.) In Meachum, the law under which the prisoner was confined did not condition location of prisoners or their transfer from prison to prison upon the existence of any factual circumstance. 2 Consequently, the court concluded that unlimited discretion to make transfer was necessary to the control and supervision of the prison system. ( Meachum v. Fano, supra, 427 U.S. 215, 229.)