When a petitioner challenges his extradition, are the defendant-responsible-for-the-extradition-totally-exempt-from-liability, although they knew of the pending-habeas-corpus-challenge?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 4, WHEN A PETITIONER CHALLENGES HIS EXTRADITION, . ARE THE DEFENDANTEK-RES PONSIBLE FORTHE DCTRADITION TOTAUY EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY, ALTHOUGH THEY KNEW cF THE PENDING HABEAS GoRPUS CHALLENGE ? 2. 5 TRE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT APPLICABLE Yo A PLUINTIFF Wits GALEN ”“PARELY PRoceDURAL VIOLATIONS; AND Nor @oNDITIONS & CONFINEMENT ? 31S A HABEAS CORPUS PETITION Gi AWE NGING THE 7PLAINTIFFS EXTRADITION MOST BECAUSE! PLAINTIE WAS EXTRAP(TEDBEFORE HIS CHANCE TO CHALLENGE HIS EXTRADITION 2 4, How) CAN PLAINTIFFS PURELY PROCEDURAL ConsTTTUTIO | NAL VIOLATION Be RECONCILED, WHEN CHALLENGING HIS EXTRADITION S NO SNGEL AVALABLE BUE TO . WIS WLEGAL REMBVAL FROM THE ASSY LUM STATE, WA THE PURSLY PROCEDURAL 2 5. PLAINTIFFS EFFORTS TD OBTAIN A coPy £ THE Assy Liny STATES GOVERNOR WARRMIT HAVE BEEN FUTILE, BECAUSE THE WARRANT NEVER EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. Hon) DaES THis FACT MEASURE AGAINST DEFENDANTS GeNTENTI oN: o& A ConsTt TUTIONALLY LEGAL EXTRADITION ? CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED @ PRISON LITIGATION REFORM AeT CPLRA) @ FLORIDA CRIMINAL EXTRADITION ACT. . -¢ 42 NSC & 1983 : e SUPREME cT RULE 130 © 28 USS & 1254 CO) w UNITED STATES ConsTiTUTION 14 thAMEN DMENT eo SUPREME CT RULE |0@ « 28 USCS 183! AND JZ4ZQ@® o UNIFORM CRIMINAL. EXTRADITION ACT