A ft erexami ni ng appel l ant ’ s br i ef a nd the appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panelhas * det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe d e te rm in a tio n o f

th is ap p e a l. See F e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) a n d 1 0 th Ci r . R. 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, fo r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. M r . Fr i edman i s notan i nfr equentl i t i gantbefor e thi s court . H i s fi l i ngs 1 (c o n tin u e d ...) FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 28, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT CH AR L E S D. F RI E DM AN, P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. R A N D Y A N D E R S O N , U .S . M a rsh a l, Di s tr i c to f

Ut a h ; a n d AAR ON D. K E N N A R D , Sher i ff, Sal tL ake C o u n ty, R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 07- 4161 ( D. C. No . 2 : 0 6 - CV- 1 0 6 1 - TC)

( D . U t ah)

OR DER AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e L U C E R O , H A R T Z , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. C har l es Fr i edman fi l ed a 28 U . S. C . § 2241 habea s corpus pet i t i on i n the D i s tr i ctof U t ah i n D ece m ber2006, r ai s i ng cl ai m s abouti nadequa t e medi calcar e, d e p ri v a tio n o f

le g a l p ap e rs a n d re fe re n c e m a te ri a ls , a n d d is c ip lin a ry se g re g a tio n . C o m p l. at 4, 6, 8. O n Ju n e 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 , the d istri ct co u rtd en ied M r. F ri ed m an ’s 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 h e r e i n c l u d e 0 6 - 4 2 2 6 , a n ap p l i c a t i o n t o fi l e a s u c c e s s i v e h a b e a s p e t i t i o n wh i c h we d e n ied ; 0 7 -4 0 7 3 , a m a n d a m u s p e tit io n w e d ism iss e d a s m o o t; an d 0 7 -4 1 1 6 , a c iv il ri g h ts a c tio n w e a ls o d is m is s e d . - 2 - pet i t i on becaus e hi s chal l enges t o the condi t i ons of hi s confi nements houl d have been br oughtas a ci vi l r i ght s act i on under42 U . S. C . § 1983 r atherthan i n a § 2241 habea s act i on. D . C t . O p. at1. M r . Fr i edman t i m el yappea l ed, ar gui ng th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d b yd e n y in g h is p e tit io n w ith o u t g ra n tin g h im lea v e to amend. H abea s corpus i s notan appr opr i at e vehi cl e t o chal l enge c ondi t i ons of c o n fin e m e n t. Uni ted States v. Sis ner os , 599 F. 2d 946, 947 ( 10th C i r . 1979) ( per cu ri am ); Merr i t tv. P ugh , N o . 0 0 -11 2 9 , 2 0 0 0 W L 7 7 0 5 7 7 , at *1 (10 th C ir . Ju n e 1 5 , 2 0 0 0 ); Mur

phy v. B r ooks , N o . 9 7 -1 1 7 5 , 1 9 9 7 W L 7 9 6 4 8 5 , at * 1 (1 0 th C ir. D e c . 3 1 , 1 9 9 7 ). M r. F rie d m a n ’s c o m p lain ts a g a in st S a lt L a k e C o u n ty Sher i ff’ s O ffi ce offi ci al s and the U . S. M ar s hal s i ns t ead s houl d be br oughti n a ci vi l r i ght s act i on pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983 and Bi v e n s v . S ix Un kn o wn Nam ed Agents of

FederalB ur eau of

Nar cot i cs , 4 0 3 U .S . 3 8 8 (1 9 7 1 ). F urtherm ore, the d i stri ctcou rtdid not err i n d eny i ng the p et i t i on w i tho ut fi rs t gr ant i ng M r . Fr i edman l eave t o amend, as the di s tr i ctcourtexpl i ci t l yi ns truct ed th a t “th e C o u rt C ler ksh a ll m a il t o P e tit io n e r a fo rm p riso n e r c iv il righ ts c o m p lain t— a lo n g w ith in fo rm a tio n o n h o w to c o m p lete it— fo r P e tit io n e r to file- 3 -

i n a n e w c a s e i f

h e wi s h e s . ” D. Ct . Op . a t3 . F o rth e fo r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we a ffirm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f M r. F ri e d m a n ’s p e titio n . T he di s tr i ctcourtdi d notaddr es s w hetherM r . Fr i edman coul d pr ocee d in f orm a p auperis o n ap p e a l, so w e re q u ire d h im to file a n ap p lica tio n in th is c o u rt, w hi ch he ha s done. A l though § 2241 pr ocee di ngs ar e not“ci vi l act i ons ” for p u rp o se s o f

2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (a )(2 )a n d (b ), “[ a ] p riso n e r se e k in g to p ro c e e d in form a paupe r i s w i th hi s orher§ 2241 pet i t i on r emai ns obl i gat ed t o compl yw i th, and i s s ubj ectt o, al l of the otherpr ovi s i ons of 28 U . S. C . § 1915. ” McIntos h v. U. S. P a ro le C o m m ’n , 115 F. 3d 809, 812 ( 10th C i r . 1997) . B ecaus e M r . Fr i edman has notdemonstr at ed “the exi s t ence of a r eas oned, nonfr i vol ous ar gum enton the l aw and fa ct s i n s upportof the i s s ues r ai s ed on appe al , ” w e denyhi s appl i cat i on t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a up e ris . Id. ( quot i ng D eBardeleben v . Q ui nlan , 937 F. 2d 5 0 2 , 5 0 5 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 )) . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT N ei l M . G or s uch C i r cui tJ udge