
    Sala-Thiel THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wayne CHOINSKI and Federal Bureau of Prisons, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-1205-pr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 26, 2010.
    Sala-Thiel Thompson, Lewisburg, PA, pro se, Appellant.
    Alan M. Soloway, Assistant United States Attorney, (Nora R. Dannehy, United States Attorney; William J. Nardini, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel) United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut, New Haven, CT, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Rosemary S. Pooler, originally scheduled to be a member of the panel hearing this appeal, was unable to participate. The appeal has been decided by the remaining two members of the panel, who are in agreement. See 2d Cir. Local Rules, Internal Operating Procedure E(b).
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Sala-Thiel Thompson appeals from the March 9, 2009 judgment of the District Court denying plaintiffs petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the District Court erred as follows: (1) the District Court improperly rejected Thompson’s claim that he was deprived of due process at his prison disciplinary proceedings arising from his attempt to escape prison in 1991; (2) the District Court improperly rejected Thompson’s challenge to his prison security classification and his transfers among prisons; (3) the District Court improperly rejected Thompson’s claims that the procedures set forth in the Interstate Agreement on Detainers should apply to a de-tainer lodged by the Bahamas; and (4) the District Court erred in rejecting Thompson’s challenge to the administrative sanctions imposed for his failure to comply with an order. Plaintiff also challenges on appeal the validity of his underlying criminal conviction. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case.

First, plaintiff challenges his underlying conviction. We have already rejected Thompson’s arguments that he was not lawfully convicted because the District Court lacked proper jurisdiction. Thompson v. Choinski, 525 F.3d 205 (2d Cir.2008) (affirming in part and vacating and remanding in part the District Court’s dismissal of plaintiffs claims asserted in this petition for a writ of habeas corpus). Furthermore, Thompson’s conviction has previously been upheld on both direct appeal and in proceedings held pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. United States v. Blackman, 66 F.3d 1572 (11th Cir.1995) (upholding Thompson’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal); Thompson v. United States, 252 F.3d 438 (11th Cir.2001) (unpublished table decision) (affirming the District Court’s denial of Thompson’s motion to vacate his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255). The law of the case doctrine “commands that when a court has ruled on an issue, that decision should generally be adhered to by that court in subsequent stages in the same case,” Johnson v. Holder, 564 F.3d 95, 99 (2d Cir.2009) (quotation marks omitted), unless there has been “an intervening change in law, availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent a manifest injustice.” Id. at 99-100 (quotation marks omitted). We rejected previously plaintiffs challenge to his conviction, Thompson, 525 F.3d 205, and see no reason to disturb that decision.

Plaintiff also argues that the District Court made several errors in denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We review de novo the denial of an application for a writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See, e.g., Armstrong v. Guccione, 470 F.3d 89, 96 (2d Cir.2006). With respect to plaintiffs arguments challenging the District Court’s denial of Thompson’s motion for a writ of habeas corpus, we have reviewed each of plaintiffs claims and find them to be without merit. Substantially for the reasons stated by the District Court in its careful and thorough order of March 9, 2009, see Thompson v. Choinski, 04-CV-851 (D.Conn. March 9, 2009), the order of the District Court is AFFIRMED.  