Dennis Boyle v. Wilson ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 19-10626      Document: 00515514983         Page: 1    Date Filed: 08/04/2020
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    No. 19-10626                             August 4, 2020
    Summary Calendar
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    DENNIS BOYLE,
    Petitioner-Appellant
    v.
    WARDEN WILSON,
    Respondent-Appellee
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:19-CV-327
    Before JOLLY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Dennis Boyle, federal prisoner # 75596-097, appeals the dismissal for
    lack of subject matter jurisdiction of his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     petition challenging
    the constitutionality of certain Bureau of Prisons program statements that
    restrict his ability to use the prison’s electronic messaging system. The district
    court held that Boyle’s challenge was to the conditions of his confinement and,
    as such, it was not cognizable on § 2241 review. We review de novo the district
    * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
    CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 19-10626    Document: 00515514983     Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/04/2020
    19-10626
    court’s dismissal of the § 2241 petition on the pleadings. See Pack v. Yusuff,
    
    218 F.3d 448
    , 451 (5th Cir. 2000).
    A § 2241 habeas petition is the proper procedural vehicle for challenging
    an action that “directly implicates the duration of” a prisoner’s confinement.
    Davis v. Fechtel, 
    150 F.3d 486
    , 487, 490 (5th Cir. 1998). It is not, however, the
    proper procedural vehicle for claims, such as Boyle’s, regarding the conditions
    of confinement. See 
    id. at 490
    ; Carson v. Johnson, 
    112 F.3d 818
    , 820-21 (5th
    Cir. 1997). Boyle therefore has shown no error on the part of the district court.
    See Pack, 
    218 F.3d at 451
    .
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-10626

Filed Date: 8/4/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2020