BROWN v. BLANCKENSEE (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-08-24No. No. 20-15748

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal because habeas corpus under § 2241 is the improper remedy for claims of civil rights violations by prison officials; such claims must be brought instead as Bivens actions.

Brian Brown, a federal inmate, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming the Bureau of Prisons violated his constitutional and statutory rights when it removed him from the Religious Diet Program. The district court dismissed the petition, and Brown appealed. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that habeas corpus is not the proper vehicle for challenging alleged civil rights violations by prison officials.

The court explained that when a federal prisoner asserts a civil rights violation—including claims based on due process, free speech, and religious freedom statutes—the appropriate remedy is a civil rights action under Bivens, not a habeas petition. Habeas corpus under § 2241 is limited to challenges involving how a sentence is carried out, its location, or conditions of confinement that impose a substantial additional liberty restriction. Removing an inmate from a dietary program, even if characterized as disciplinary, does not rise to the level of constraint necessary to invoke habeas jurisdiction.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Proper forum for federal prisoner civil rights claims against the Bureau of Prisons
Scope of habeas corpus jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Whether removal from a religious dietary program constitutes a liberty deprivation sufficient for habeas relief

Procedural posture

Brown appealed pro se from the district court's dismissal of his § 2241 habeas petition challenging his removal from the Religious Diet Program.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Brian L. Brown appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011), we affirm.

Brown contends that the Bureau of Prisons violated his due process and First Amendment rights, as well as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., by removing him from the Religious Diet Program. As the district court correctly concluded, the appropriate remedy for these claims lies in a civil rights action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), rather than a § 2241 petition. See Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1991) (federal prisoner asserting civil rights violation must file a Bivens action rather than a § 2241 petition); see also Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000) (a § 2241 petition is limited to challenges to “the manner, location, or conditions of a sentences execution”). Even if, as Brown asserts, his suspension from the Religious Diet Program constituted a disciplinary action, that action did not subject him to greater restrictions of his liberty sufficient to invoke habeas jurisdiction. See Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016).

AFFIRMED.