* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### February 7, 2006 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JERRY LEWIS DEDRICK,

Petitioner-Appellant, No. 05-6268
v. (D.C. No. CIV-05-851-T) JOSEPH SCIBANA, Warden, (W. D. Okla.)

Respondent-Appellee.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HENRY , McKAY, and EBEL , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record , this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. **See** Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without ora l argument. Mr. Dedrick appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. Mr. Dedrick complains that the co nditions of his confinement violate the Eighth Amendment–specifically that inmates are denied conjugal-2-

visits. This denial, Mr. Dedrick argues, results i n a high rate of homosexual conduct among the populations, and this, coupled wi th the fact that the government does not provide condoms to the inmates, exposes himself and other inmates to AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases. Mr. Dedrick seeks an order allowing conjugal visits, the placement of condoms in prisons, and damages in excess of three trillion dollars. The magistrate j udge recommended dismissal of the petition because § 2241 was not the appropriate remedy for alleged Eighth Amendment violations. The magistrate judge furthernoted that, if the court instead adopted a broad construction of Mr. Dedrick ’s petition and viewed it as a civil rights claim, it would likely be subject to d ismissal as well because of a failure to exhaust the available administrative rem edies. Because Mr. Dedrick would then be responsible for the filing fees assoc iated with a civil rights claim and at the same time force him to accept a dismissa l, the magistrate judge recommended that the court leave to him the option of refiling a civil rights claim. On August 8, 2005, the district court adopt ed the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and dismissed Mr. Dedrick ’s petition. To this court, Mr. Dedrick adds a request that we o rder Congress to hold hearings about the denial of conjugal visits and it s results. Among other issues, Mr. Dedrick has not named the proper defendants forus to entertain such a request–neither Congress nor any of its members is party to this lawsuit.-3-

Accordingly, we DENY Mr. Dedrick’s motion for congressional hearings. We have carefully reviewed Mr. Dedrick’s brief, the ma gistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, the district court’s order, and the record on appeal, and for substantially the same reasons set forth in the dis trict court’s August 8, 2005 Order, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Dedrick’s pe tition for 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus relief. Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge