Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-05-03043/USCOURTS-ca10-05-03043-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED ST ATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

May 27, 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

RODNEY HILL, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

V. No. 05-3043 

E.J. GALLEGOS, Warden, (D.C. No. 04-CV-3074-RDR) 

(D. Kan.) 

Respondent-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.l(G). The case is 

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Rodney Hill, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, appeals the district court's 

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition without prejudice. We exercise 

*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court 

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order 

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of I 0th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 05-3043 Document: 010110642504 Date Filed: 05/27/2005 Page: 1
Appellate Case: 05-3043 Document: 010110642504 Date Filed: 05/27/2005 Page: 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. 

In his petition, Hill asserted he was improperly removed from his UNICOR 

prison work position and that officials failed to follow policies and procedures for 

terminating prisoners from UNICORjobs. The district court noted that Hill's 

allegations did not impact the legality or duration of confinement and were not 

appropriate for habeas review, and determined it would construe the matter as a 

Bivens complaint. Hill objected. As a result, the court dismissed the habeas 

petition without prejudice, noting Hill could properly file a Bivens complaint. 

The district court properly dismissed Hill's§ 2241 habeas petition without 

prejudice. A habeas proceeding attacks the fact or duration of a prisoner's 

confinement and seeks the remedy of immediate release or a shortened period of 

confinement. See McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Com'n, 115 F.3d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 

1997). Where a § 2241 petition is brought "challenging prison disciplinary 

proceedings, such as the deprivation of good-time credits, [it] is not challenging 

prison conditions.'' Id. at 812. Rather, ''it is challenging an action affecting the 

fact or duration of the petitioner's custody." Id. 

AFFIRMED. 

2 

Entered for the Court 

Mary Beck Briscoe 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 05-3043 Document: 010110642504 Date Filed: 05/27/2005 Page: 3
Appellate Case: 05-3043 Document: 010110642504 Date Filed: 05/27/2005 Page: 4