United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-10169

Summary Calendar

Gary Sheldon, 

Petitioner—Appellant,

versus

K. Zook, Warden, 

Respondent—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:20-CV-3356

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Petitioner-Appellant Gary Sheldon, federal prisoner # 13437-045,

appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition without prejudice to 

reasserting his claims in a civil rights action. He has also filed motions for (1)

appointment of counsel, (2) expediting the ruling on the motion for the 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 10, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-10169 Document: 00516541791 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2022
No. 21-10169

2

appointment of counsel, (3) a preliminary injunction, (4) leave to file a 

supplemental brief, and (5) expediting the appeal. Only Sheldon’s motion for 

leave to file a supplemental brief is granted.

We also decline to consider Sheldon’s challenge to several new 

charges of disciplinary violations for the first time on appeal. See Page v. U.S. 

Parole Comm’n, 651 F.2d 1083, 1087 (5th Cir. 1981) (refusing to entertain § 

2241 petitioner’s claims raised for the first time on appeal).

We review a district court’s dismissal of a § 2241 petition de novo. 

Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). Sheldon argues that the 

district court abused its discretion by failing to address the merits of his claim 

involving his prison disciplinary proceeding that resulted in the loss of at least 

14 days of good-time credit. Because Sheldon challenged the loss of goodtime credit in his petition, he properly sought relief pursuant to § 2241, so his 

petition should not have been dismissed as to this claim. Cf. Henson v. U.S. 

Bureau of Prisons, 213 F.3d 897, 898 (5th Cir. 2000). We therefore vacate the 

district court’s judgment in part and remand for further proceedings for the 

district court to address Sheldon’s claim under § 2241.

Sheldon also reasserts his claims involving the Bureau of Prisons’

classifying him as a sex offender and the prison officials’ confiscation of his 

materials. These claims do not challenge the fact or duration of confinement. 

See Pack, 218 F.3d at 451. The district court’s dismissal of these claims 

without prejudice is therefore affirmed.

Finally, Sheldon’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied 

without prejudice to his reurging it on remand. This is a determination better 

addressed first by the district court. Sheldon’s remaining motions are also

denied.

For these reasons, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED IN 

PART, VACATED IN PART, and REMANDED for further 

Case: 21-10169 Document: 00516541791 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/10/2022
No. 21-10169

3

proceedings. Sheldon’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief is

GRANTED and his motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. His remaining motions are DENIED.

Case: 21-10169 Document: 00516541791 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/10/2022