OPINION *

In 2011, James Andrew Williams was charged with one count of failing to register as a convicted sex offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). In 2013, after he pleaded guilty, he was sentenced to time served and a 10-year, term of supervised release. 1 Twice, his supervised release has been revoked for violations. Each time, he was sentenced to prison and given a new term of supervised release. 2 While serving the second of the two sentences for violating the terms of his supervised release at FCI-Loretto, Williams filed a pro se motion' on the docket of his criminal case.

Williams asked the District Court to instruct the warden at FCI-Loretto to “open up unlimited ... access to attorneys, courts, investigators in-the Western District of Pennsylvania with a joint motion” and “to release any information or knowledge” of threats against Williams by “Hispanics and/or gang members” and “conflicts between them.” The District Court, noting that it lacked authority over the operations of the Bureau of Prisons, denied the motion. The District Court nonetheless forwarded a copy of the motion to the warden to address Williams’s apparent concern about his safety.

Williams appeals. 3 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Upon review, we will summarily affirm because no substantial question is presented on appeal. 4 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

*719 First, we note that' it is not clear under which authority Williams proceeded with his request, in his criminal case, for the District Court to instruct the warden. If he was attempting to open an original mandamus action under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, his attempt was appropriately rebuffed because he did not show that the warden owed him a duty to provide unlimited access to, and the release of, information. If he was seeking to file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, as he suggests in his notice of appeal by essentially arguing that the District Court retains authority over his sentence, the denial was also correct. A federal prisoner may challenge the execution of his sentence in a petition pursuant to § 2241. See Goody v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485 (3d Cir. 2001). However, Williams does not raise such a challenge; if '.anything, his motion related to the conditions of his confinement, which cannot be raised in habeas. Cf Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542 (3d Cir. 2002) (“[W]hen the challenge is to a condition of confinement such that a finding in plaintiffs favor would not alter his sentence or undo his conviction, [a civil rights action] is appropriate.”)

Also, Williams did not present a civil rights complaint or seek to open a new action with his filing. 5 He essentially sought discovery. In his criminal case, there was no good cause for the information unrelated to his criminal case and sought after his judgment was entered. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(d) (regulating discovery in criminal cases). And, as noted, there was no pending civil action for which a subpoena or discovery was appropriate. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 & 45.

For these reasons, we conclude that the District Court correctly ruled that it was without authority to provide the relief that Williams requested. We will affirm the District Court’s judgment. 6