JUDGMENT ORDER

To the extent that a certificate of ap-pealability is necessary for this appeal, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A), it is denied. Otherwise, after consideration of all contentions raised by the appellant, it is ADJUDGED and ORDERED by this Court that the judgment of the District Court entered September 12, 2014, be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Although Williams captioned his case as a state habeas action against a prison warden for relief in the Lackawanna Court of Common Pleas, his claims did not sound in habeas. His claims did not challenge to the fact or duration of his imprisonment, which is the essential purpose of the writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484, 498-99, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). He brought claims about the conditions of his confinement, namely Eighth Amendment claims about his medical care (or the lack thereof). Such claims by a state prisoner like Williams are properly brought in an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not a habeas petition. See 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.”) Although we perhaps could, in an appropriate case, vacate a district court’s dismissal of a ha-beas petition and remand for it to be treated a civil rights or similar complaint, see Moorish Sci. Temple, Inc. v. Smith, 693 F.2d 987, 989-90 (2d Cir. 1982); see also Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), such an outcome is not appropriate in this case where Williams already has a civil rights action pending relating to the same or *362 similar claims and deliberately filed a different type of action.

Each side shall bear their own costs.