United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
W. LUNGSTRUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is a petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. Petitioner, a prisoner in federal custody at
Atlanta-USP, proceeds pro se. The Court has screened his
Petition (Doc. 1) under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas
Corpus Cases, foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and dismisses this
action for the following reasons.
brings this action against the warden at USP-Leavenworth and
others, claiming he is being illegally held through the use
of a “fake judgment and confinement order” issued
in Case No. 07-00207-AG in the Central District of
California. Petitioner also complains about the
conditions of his confinement, including an allegation that
he has been given poisoned food.
federal prisoner seeking release from allegedly illegal
confinement may file a motion to “vacate, set aside or
correct the sentence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). A
motion under § 2255 must be filed in the district where
the petitioner was convicted and sentence imposed. Sines
v. Wilner, 609 F.3d 1070, 1073 (10th Cir. 2010). This
remedy is normally the only means to challenge a federal
conviction after the direct appeal is resolved. Brace v.
United States, 634 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 2011).
However, under the “savings clause” in §
2255(e), a federal prisoner may file an application for
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district of
confinement if the petitioner demonstrates that the remedy
provided by § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective
to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C.
must file a § 2255 petition in the district where he was
convicted and sentence imposed, and a § 2241 petition in
the district of confinement. Petitioner has not alleged that
he was convicted or sentenced in this district, nor is he
currently confined in this district. This Court has
previously dismissed habeas petitions filed by Petitioner,
“repeatedly advising him that this Court lacks
jurisdiction to hear challenges to his federal conviction in
the Central District of California.” Lee v.
Maye, No. 15-3023-KHV (D. Kan. Feb. 12, 2016) (citing
Lee v. Maye, No. 14-3054-RDR (D. Kan. Apr. 24, 2014)
(dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to hear challenges to
federal convictions or sentences in Central District of
California); and Lee v. Maye, No. 14-3076-RDR (D.
Kan. June 6, 2014) (citing Case No. 14-3054, dismissed as
successive and abusive), aff'd App. Case No.
14-3127 (10th Cir. Oct. 24, 2014)).
challenging a prisoner's conditions of confinement do not
arise under § 2241. See McIntosh v. United States
Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir. 1997)
(contrasting suits under Section 2241 and conditions of
confinement claims). Petitioner's claims regarding the
conditions of his confinement must be brought in a civil
rights action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 (1971). See Requena v. Roberts, 552 F.
App'x. 853 (10th Cir. April 7, 2014).
Court has previously warned Petitioner that his conditions of
confinement claims are not properly litigated in a habeas
corpus petition. See Lee v. Maye, No. 15-3023 (D.
Kan. Feb. 12, 2016) (“The Court has repeatedly informed
petitioner that conditions of confinement claims must be
litigated in a civil rights complaint, that a civil rights
complaint must be submitted upon court-approved forms, and
the fee for filing a civil rights complaint is $400.00
(rather than the $5.00 fee for a habeas petition) and that he
is obligated to pay the full filing fee up front if funds
exist or through payments deducted from his inmate
account.”); Lee v. Maye, No. 15-3040-KHV (D.
Kan. Jan. 8, 2016) (finding habeas petition
“duplicative, frivolous and abusive” where
petitioner claimed continuous receipt of poisoned food and
stating that conditions of confinement claim is not properly
litigated in a habeas corpus petition).
has been previously warned that he cannot avoid assessment of
the appropriate filing fee or application of the
three-strikes provision simply by styling conditions claims
as habeas claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Lee v.
Maye, No. 15-3023-KHV (D. Kan. Feb. 12, 2016).
Therefore, any such future claims, no matter how presented,
will be appropriately construed as civil rights claims, and
proper statutory filing fees and strikes will be assessed.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that the petition
is dismissed as successive, duplicative, frivolous and
IS SO ORDERED.