UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington) CHAD STEVEN HUMPHRIES, ) ) Petitioner, ) Civil Action No. 5: 20-214-DCR ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) MEMORANDUM ORDER ) Respondent. ) *** *** *** *** Petitioner Chad Humphries is currently confined at the Federal Medical Center- Lexington (“FMC-Lexington”) located in Lexington, Kentucky. Proceeding without an attorney, Humphries previously filed a “Motion Requesting Judicial Recommendation for RRC/Halfway House.” [Record No. 1] He did not pay a filing fee or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Even so, on June 3, 2020, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order construing Humphries’ motion as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and denying his request for relief on substantive grounds. [Record No. 4] A corresponding Judgment was entered that same day. [Record No. 5] Humphries has now filed a motion for preliminary injunction raising claims related to the conditions of his confinement at FMC-Lexington. [Record No. 6] Specifically, he raises claims related to restrictions implemented by Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) staff in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including limitations placed on inmates’ access to the inmate computer system, law library, in-person visits, and phone calls to family. [Id.] But in addition to being unrelated to the claims raised in his § 2241 petition, this case is closed. Thus, Humphreys may no longer pursue injunctive relief in this matter. And, even if he could, his claims clearly relate to the conditions of his confinement. A federal prisoner may not use a § 2241 habeas petition to pursue civil rights claims challenging the conditions of his confinement. He can only assert such claims by filing suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 pursuant to the doctrine announced in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). See also Sullivan v. United States, 90 F. App’x 862, 863 (6th Cir. 2004) (“[Section] 2241 is a vehicle not for challenging prison conditions, but for challenging matters concerning the execution of a sentence such as the computation of good-time credits.”). While “[c]hallenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus; requests for relief turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a [civil rights] action.” Muhammed v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Humphries’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Record No. 6] is DENIED. Dated: June 8, 2020. ay Danny C. Reeves. Chief Judge & Sy United States District Court “Se Eastern District of Kentucky -2-