IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

RICKEY WHITE, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) No. CIV-23-156-R ) OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ) CORRECTIONS, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 18] of United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell recommending that Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under

be screened and dismissed as seeking relief outside the scope of habeas. Petitioner filed a timely Objection [Doc. No. 20] and the Court must therefore make a de novo determination of the portions of the Report to which a specific objection is made.1 See

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Petitioner brings this action pursuant to § 2241 and seeks an order placing him into protective custody. Judge Mitchell concluded that Petitioner’s request is not cognizable under § 2241 because it challenges the conditions of his confinement rather than the fact or duration of his sentence. In his Objection, Petitioner reiterates that his claim is brought pursuant to § 2241 and that he is seeking placement in protective custody.

1 Plaintiff also filed a document titled Petition for Injunctive Relief on the Merits [Doc. No. 19] and Notice of Intent to Appeal [Doc. No. 21] after Judge Mitchell issued her Report. Upon de novo review, the Court agrees that an application for habeas corpus is not the correct vehicle for Petitioner’s action. When a prisoner “challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate release or a shortened period of confinement,” he “must do so through an application for habeas corpus.” Palma-Salazar v. Davis,

(10th Cir. 2012). “In contrast, a prisoner who challenges the conditions of his confinement must do so through a civil rights action.” /d. Here, Petitioner appears to be challenging the conditions of his confinement as opposed to the fact or duration of his confinement. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 18] in its entirety. For the reasons stated therein, the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under

[Doc. No. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling under

. All pending motions [Doc. Nos. 14, 16, 17, 19] are DENIED as moot. A Certificate of Appealability is denied. See Montez v. McKinna,

(10th Cir. 2000). IT IS SO ORDERED this 12" day of June, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE