(HC) Jordan-McFeely v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DEVEON CARL JORDAN-MCFEELY, No. 2:21-cv-00074-CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has paid the filing fee for this action.

19 On January 31, 2021, petitioner filed a first amended § 2241 petition challenging his conditions of confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic. ECF No. 4. By way of relief, petitioner seeks the “mandatory depopulation of FCI Herlong and all of [the] BOP during [the] pandemic,” compensatory damages, his transfer to home confinement, and the “mandate that every BOP inmate be restricted to single cell.” ECF No. 4 at 7.

24 A § 2241 habeas corpus petition is a vehicle for a federal prisoner's challenge to the execution of his sentence. Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000).

26 Challenges to a prisoner's conditions of confinement, however, must be brought through a civil rights action, rather than through a habeas corpus petition. See Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 28 749, 750 (2004) (“Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its | duration are the province of habeas corpus . . .; requests for relief turning on circumstances of || confinement may be presented in a § 1983 action.”) (citation omitted). A civil rights action is the || “proper remedy” for a prisoner “who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his | prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 || (1973). “[C]onstitutional claims that merely challenge the conditions of a prisoner's confinement, || whether the inmate seeks monetary or injunctive relief, fall outside of that core [of habeas relief]” | and, instead, should be brought as a civil rights claim “‘in the first instance.” Nelson v. Campbell, | 541 US. 637, 643 (2004); Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 933 (9th Cir. 2016).

9 In light of the foregoing, the court will recommend that petitioner’s first amended § 2241 || petition be dismissed without prejudice to presenting the claims for relief in a civil rights action || pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For these reasons, the court will recommend that petitioner’s | petition for writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed.

13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign this || matter to a district court judge.

15 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that: 16 1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed without || prejudice; and 18 2. This case be closed.

19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). Within fourteen days || after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written || objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s || Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the || specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 | F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

26 | Dated: June 29, 2021 □□ / dp ai 7 CAROLYNK. DELANEY || 12/0rd0074.summdismiss.2241.doc UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE