# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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) expedit ing the ruling on the motion for the

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 10, 2022

L yle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-10169 Document: 00516541791 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2022No. 21

- 10169

2 appointment of counsel, (3) a preliminary injunction, (4) leave to file a supplemental brief, and (5) expedit ing the appea l. 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, 10 87 (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 pro ceeding that resulted in the loss of at least

14 days of good

- time credit. Because Sheldon challenged the loss of good

time 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 a ddress Sheldon’s claim under § 2241

. Sheldon also reasserts his claims involving the Bu reau of Prisons’
classif ying him as a sex offender and the prison officials’ confiscation of his
materials. These claims do not challenge the fact or duration of confine ment. See Pack , 218 F.3d at 451. T he 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 reurg ing it on remand

. T his 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: 11/10/2022No. 21

- 10169

3 proceedings

**.** Sheldon’s motio n 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