78 F. Supp. 3d 61
D.D.C.2015Background
- Petitioner Matthew Sluss, a federal prisoner, requested transfer to Canada under the U.S.–Canada treaty for execution of sentences; DOJ’s International Prisoner Transfer Unit denied the request.
- Sluss filed suit seeking mandamus and APA relief to compel the transfer; he initially captioned his filing as habeas but framed relief as mandamus/APA.
- The court construed the filing as a civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 and 5 U.S.C. § 702 and found it had subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed.
- The governing statutory scheme is 18 U.S.C. §§ 4100–15 implementing prisoner-transfer treaties; transfers require agreement of the prisoner and both states and do not mandate transfer.
- Controlling precedent holds that international prisoner-transfer decisions are committed to agency discretion and therefore are not reviewable under the APA, which defeats a mandamus claim seeking to compel a transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court can compel DOJ to transfer Sluss under the treaty | Sluss argues DOJ must effectuate the treaty transfer and seeks mandamus/APA review to compel action | DOJ argues transfer decisions are discretionary, not subject to judicial compulsion or APA review; treaty does not create private right enforcement | Court held transfer decisions are committed to agency discretion; mandamus and APA relief unavailable; dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) granted |
| Whether mandamus is available to compel transfer | Sluss contends he has a clear right and DOJ a duty to transfer him | DOJ contends no clear nondiscretionary duty exists and mandamus cannot compel discretionary acts | Court held mandamus unavailable because duty is discretionary and petitioner's right is not "clear and indisputable" |
| Whether APA provides review of the transfer denial | Sluss invokes the APA waiver of sovereign immunity to obtain review | DOJ argues the APA excludes review of actions committed to agency discretion by law | Court held APA does not apply because transfer decisions are committed to agency discretion and thus unreviewable |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction/standing based on treaty rights | Sluss asserts jurisdiction under §§ 1361, 702 and § 1331; seeks federal-court review | DOJ contends treaty provides no private right and standing is lacking, potentially defeating jurisdiction | Court found it had jurisdiction to hear the civil action under §§ 1361 and 702 but dismissed on merits because of agency discretion (did not ultimately decide standing as dispositive) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bagguley v. Bush, 953 F.2d 660 (D.C. Cir.) (prisoner-transfer decisions are committed to agency discretion)
- Toor v. Holder, 717 F. Supp. 2d 100 (D.D.C.) (treaty authorizes but does not require transfers; all three parties must agree)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards for plausibility)
- In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723 (D.C. Cir.) (mandamus requires a clear and indisputable right)
- Thomas v. Holder, 750 F.3d 899 (D.C. Cir.) (elements for mandamus relief)
- Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902 (D.C. Cir.) (standing is jurisdictional issue)