NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 24 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIAN L. BROWN, No. 20-15748

Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:19-cv-00436-RCC-LCK v.

MEMORANDUM* BARBARA VON BLANCKENSEE,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 17, 2021** Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Brian L. Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011), we affirm.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Brown contends that the Bureau of Prisons violated his due process and First Amendment rights, as well as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., by removing him from the Religious Diet Program. As the district court correctly concluded, the appropriate remedy for these claims lies in a civil rights action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), rather than a § 2241 petition. See Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1991) (federal prisoner asserting civil rights violation must file a Bivens action rather than a § 2241 petition); see also Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000) (a § 2241 petition is limited to challenges to “the manner, location, or conditions of a sentence’s execution”). Even if, as Brown asserts, his suspension from the Religious Diet Program constituted a disciplinary action, that action did not subject him to greater restrictions of his liberty sufficient to invoke habeas jurisdiction. See Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016).

AFFIRMED.

2 20-15748