66 (7th Cir.1986) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 4082(b) (providing that the Attorney General “may at any time transfer a person from one place of confinement to another”)). Once the officials demonstrate a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason independent of the litigation in support of their application, an opposing inmate must establish that “the transfer would deprive the court of jurisdiction or substantially complicate the conduct of the litigation.” Id. Mr. Strachan has not argued he has suffered such prejudice; rather, he prevails in this appeal, and the appropriate respondent to his petition remains unchanged by his transfer. Nor does he seek retransfer as a remedy to effect compliance with Rule 23(a), but the inapposite remedy of his expected work abatement. See Goodman, 663 F.2d at 1047 (<HOLDING>). The motion is therefore denied. VACATED and
holding that an error must have a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict to entitle a petitioner to habeas relief holding that invited error does not entitle the defendant to any relief and of which he will not be heard to complain on appeal holding that under preaedpa law a habeas petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing so long as his allegations if true and if not contravened by the existing factual record would entitle him to habeas relief holding that anonymous letter was insufficient to entitle petitioner to hearing holding violation of rule 23a does not entitle petitioner to habeas relief