Mosley v. Reiser

Case: 22-60625 Document: 00516783915 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/12/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

____________ United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit FILED

No. 22-60625

June 12, 2023

Summary Calendar

____________ Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk Roy Mosley,

Petitioner—Appellant, versus

Warden Steven Reiser,

Respondent—Appellee.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:21-CV-394 ______________________________

Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Roy Mosley, federal prisoner # 10585-424, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. He broadly asserts that he has a claim for relief under Section 2241 because his right to due process was violated when he was removed from home confinement under the Elderly Offender Pilot Program (“EOPP”), see 34 U.S.C. § 60541(g)(1), (2), without

Case: 22-60625 Document: 00516783915 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/12/2023

No. 22-60625 receiving the procedural protections required by the Bureau of Prisons’ policies and Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974).

We review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo, Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001), and “may affirm the denial of habeas relief on any ground supported by the record,” Scott v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 260, 262 (5th Cir. 2000). The court properly construed Mosley’s due process claim as a civil rights claim. See Melot v. Bergami, 970 F.3d 596, 599 (5th Cir. 2020). He shows no error in the dismissal.

Mosley also contends that he exhausted administrative remedies. The district court determined that he failed to exhaust his claims involving the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) and his claim that he was not given a reason for his removal from home confinement under the EOPP. Because Mosley expressly abandons his CARES Act claims, we do not reach the exhaustion question with regard to those claims. Nor do we consider whether he exhausted his claim involving the reason for his removal from home confinement under the EOPP. Even if he did exhaust that issue, the claim was not cognizable under Section 2241. See Melot, 970 F.3d at 599; Scott, 227 F.3d at 262.

AFFIRMED.