UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7874
AHMED M. AJAJ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JOSEPH V. SMITH,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CA-02-2417-0)
Submitted: May 28, 2004 Decided: July 27, 2004
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ahmed M. Ajaj, Appellant Pro Se. John Berkley Grimball, II,
Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ahmed M. Ajaj seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief in this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) action. We affirm
as modified.
The complaint alleged constitutional violations at FCI-
Edgefield, and is properly construed as an action brought pursuant
to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971). Ajaj sought only equitable relief, and his
transfer to the federal penitentiary in Florence, Colorado, mooted
his claims about conditions at FCI-Edgefield. See Williams v.
Griffin, 952 F.2d 820, 823 (4th Cir. 1991). To the extent that
Ajaj complained about his transfer to Colorado, the Bureau of
Prisons has discretion to determine where and under what conditions
a federal prisoner is housed. See Bell v. Wolfish, 411 U.S. 520,
539, 540-41 n.23 (1979). Further, Ajaj did not have a protected
liberty interest in remaining at FCI-Edgefield. See Sandin v.
Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). Finally, the district court
should not have addressed the conditions of Ajaj’s confinement in
Colorado. Ajaj named only the warden at FCI-Edgefield as a
defendant and did not amend his complaint to add a cause of action
about conditions of his confinement in Colorado. The district
court was without jurisdiction over anyone with responsibility for
such conditions.
- 2 -
We accordingly affirm as modified. Ajaj’s motion for the
appointment of counsel is denied. This decision is without
prejudice to Ajaj’s right to challenge the conditions of his
present confinement in the district court in Colorado. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
- 3 -