United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
to U.S. Magistrate Judge 
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
CARRILLO RAMIREZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under
28 U.S.C. § 2241, received on July 1, 2019.
(See doc. 3.) Based on the relevant findings and
applicable law, the petition should be
DISMISSED without prejudice.
Vela (Petitioner), a federal prisoner detained at the Federal
Correctional Institute in Seagoville, Texas (FCI-Seagoville),
claims that he subjected to “cruel and unusual
punishment in violation of the Eight Amendment” because
he “denied access to medical treatment and screening
after being exposed to cancer causing asbestos and
breath-taking mold” at that facility. He also claims
that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) “[does] not
comply with the regulations prescribing the administrative
remedies by the Attorney General under 28 CFR §§
542.01 et seq.” (See doc. 3 at
14-15.) Expressly proceeding under § 2241, he
seeks a finding that FCI-Seagoville does not follow the
required BOP administrative remedies procedure, an order
requiring that he receive medical treatment for his exposure
to asbestos and mold, and immediate release from prison.
(Id. at 15-16.) No. process has been issued.
2241 states, in relevant part, that a habeas petitioner may
be granted relief only if the he “is in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A
petitioner can utilize habeas corpus proceedings only if he
is challenging the fact or duration of his confinement.
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 - 88 (1973);
see also Cook v. Hanberry, 592 F.2d 248, 249 (5th
Cir.1979) (stating that the “sole function” of a
habeas petition is relief from unconstitutional custody, and
“it cannot be used for any other purpose”)
Conversely, “habeas corpus is not available to
prisoners complaining only of mistreatment during their legal
incarceration.” Granville v. Hunt, 411 F.2d 9,
12 (5th Cir.1969). Allegations complaining of the rules,
customs, and procedures affecting conditions of confinement
or treatment of prisoners are properly brought in a civil
rights action. Spina v. Aaron, 821 F.2d 1126,
1127-28 (5th Cir.1987). “If a favorable determination .
. . would not automatically entitle [the petitioner] to
accelerated release, ” the proper course for the
petitioner is a civil rights action. Carson v.
Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 820 - 21 (5th Cir.1997).
§ 2241 petition does not allege that Petitioner is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties
of the United States. He complains of the lack of medical
care at his prison facility, and that BOP does not follow its
internal administrative remedy procedures. Because Petitioner
complains only of the conditions of his confinement, and a
favorable determination would have no effect on his projected
date of release, his claims are not cognizable under §
2241. If Petitioner seeks to challenge the alleged failure of
the BOP to provide medical care, or employ adequate internal
procedures, he must raise his claims in an appropriate civil
action and pay the applicable filing fee.
Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires
all prisoners who bring a civil action to pay the
full filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(1). A prisoner who is granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis will still have to pay the filing
fee, but he will be allowed to pay it in installments, which
will be automatically withdrawn from his inmate trust
account. Because of the $400.00 filing fee, Petitioner's
§ 2241 petition is not liberally construed as a new
civil case at this time.
Clerk's Office is INSTRUCTED to forward
Petitioner a copy of the standard forms for filing a civil
complaint and a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and an
application to proceed in forma pauperis.
petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 should be DISMISSED without prejudice
to properly raising his claims in a separate civil action.
FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT ...