In plaintiff's third claim for relief, he contends that he is being denied equal protection of the law because his imprisonment abroad denies him access to American law. Id. at 10. Plaintiff claims that all other persons under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice have legal access. Id. at 8. The argument that his transfer resulted in a deprivation of equal protection of the law constitutes a challenge to the legality of the transfer itself.
Similarly, in his fourth claim for relief, plaintiff alleges that the operation and effect of 18 U.S.C. § 4107 (b)(2) has caused him and will continue to cause him a deprivation of rights secured to him by the United States Constitution. Id. at 10. 18 U.S.C. § 4107 (b)(2) subjects plaintiff to the laws of the United Kingdom.
Plaintiff contends that, instead, he is entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution as promised by a United States Magistrate who handled his case.
Moreover, plaintiff argues that he cannot consent to waive his constitutional rights. Opposition, at 4. In challenging a statutory provision of his transfer as unconstitutional, plaintiff challenges the legality of his transfer.
In his fifth claim for relief, plaintiff contends that his contract to transfer should be considered void because the British authorities changed his release date. Complaint, at 10. This final allegation addresses the validity of plaintiff's transfer by challenging the validity of his transfer contract.
In sum, the five claims for relief, as set forth in plaintiff's complaint, all relate significantly to the validity or legality of his transfer. Nonetheless, plaintiff adamantly contends that he is not disputing his transfer per se. In support of plaintiff's characterization, his prayer for relief requests a combination of equitable relief and monetary damages arising from civil rights violations; he does not include a specific request to transfer. Id. at 11. Moreover, plaintiff claims he is alleging civil rights violations which took place outside the jurisdiction of the District of Oklahoma. Id. at 2.
While plaintiff's characterization of his own complaint merits respect, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the alleged civil rights violations, in effect, constitute a challenge to the validity or legality of his transfer. Section 3244 (4) of Title 18 limits jurisdiction for all proceedings challenging the validity or legality of transfer to the district which initially handled the validation of plaintiff's consent. Here, consent proceedings were held by a Magistrate in the Western District of Oklahoma. Accordingly, this Court shall grant defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3244 (4).
For the reasons stated above, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss is granted and this case stands dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.