(HC) Jordan-McFeely v. Federal Bureau of Prisons ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEVEON CARL JORDAN-MCFEELY, No. 2:21-cv-00074-CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has paid the filing fee for this action. 19 On January 31, 2021, petitioner filed a first amended § 2241 petition challenging his 20 conditions of confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic. ECF No. 4. By way of relief, 21 petitioner seeks the “mandatory depopulation of FCI Herlong and all of [the] BOP during [the] 22 pandemic,” compensatory damages, his transfer to home confinement, and the “mandate that 23 every BOP inmate be restricted to single cell.” ECF No. 4 at 7. 24 A § 2241 habeas corpus petition is a vehicle for a federal prisoner's challenge to the 25 execution of his sentence. Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000). 26 Challenges to a prisoner's conditions of confinement, however, must be brought through a civil 27 rights action, rather than through a habeas corpus petition. See Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 28 749, 750 (2004) (“Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its 1 | duration are the province of habeas corpus . . .; requests for relief turning on circumstances of 2 || confinement may be presented in a § 1983 action.”) (citation omitted). A civil rights action is the 3 || “proper remedy” for a prisoner “who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his 4 | prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 5 || (1973). “[C]onstitutional claims that merely challenge the conditions of a prisoner's confinement, 6 || whether the inmate seeks monetary or injunctive relief, fall outside of that core [of habeas relief]” 7 | and, instead, should be brought as a civil rights claim “‘in the first instance.” Nelson v. Campbell, 8 | 541 US. 637, 643 (2004); Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 933 (9th Cir. 2016). 9 In light of the foregoing, the court will recommend that petitioner’s first amended § 2241 10 || petition be dismissed without prejudice to presenting the claims for relief in a civil rights action 11 || pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For these reasons, the court will recommend that petitioner’s 12 | petition for writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign this 14 || matter to a district court judge. 15 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that: 16 1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed without 17 || prejudice; and 18 2. This case be closed. 19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 20 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). Within fourteen days 21 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 22 || objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 23 || Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the 24 || specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 25 | F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 26 | Dated: June 29, 2021 □□ / dp ai 7 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 28 || 12/0rd0074.summdismiss.2241.doc UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE