* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary.  Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record.  See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 11, 2009*

Decided May 11, 2009

Before

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 08‐2904

THOMAS CUNNINGHAM,

           Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

ERIC WILSON,

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 08 C 3465

Robert M. Dow, Jr.,

Judge.

O R D E R

This case is one of at least four that Thomas Cunningham has pending in federal

court.  The first case is criminal: a jury convicted Cunningham of bank robbery, and a

sentencing hearing is scheduled for June.  The other three cases are all civil and concern the

conditions of Cunningham’s confinement while he was awaiting his criminal trial.  One is a

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08‐2904 Page 2

civil rights lawsuit pending in the Central District of Illinois, in which Cunningham is

seeking damages for an alleged denial of medical treatment while he was detained at the

Kankakee County Detention Center before trial.  Another is a similar civil rights lawsuit

pending in the Northern District of Illinois, regarding harms that Cunningham allegedly

suffered after he was transferred to the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Chicago.  In the

last civil case, this one, Cunningham also complained about the conditions of his

confinement at Kankakee and at the MCC, but he did not seek damages or injunctive relief.

Instead, he brought this case as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241, arguing that his mistreatment as a pretrial detainee was so severe that he should be

immediately released from custody.  Reasoning that a writ of habeas corpus is not the

proper remedy for unlawful conditions of confinement, the district court dismissed. We

affirm.

The district court was correct that release from custody is not a form of relief

available under § 2241 to a federal inmate challenging the conditions of his confinement.

See Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 386‐87 (7th Cir. 2005).  And even though Cunningham

was a pretrial detainee and not a sentenced inmate, the rule of Glaus applies because the

“standards applicable to complaints by convicts and by pretrial detainees about unsafe

conditions of confinement merge.”  Hart v. Sheahan, 396 F.3d 887, 892 (7th Cir. 2005).  That

is, a federal convict brings his claim about conditions of confinement under the Eighth

Amendment and a federal pretrial detainee must use the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process

Clause, see Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.15 (1979), but we apply the same substantive

standards to both claims.  Therefore, under Glaus, neither claim can be remedied by release

under § 2241.  We note that, under § 2241, some due process violations occurring during

confinement can be remedied by an earlier release from custody.  But those violations affect

the duration of confinement, e.g., Waletzki v. Keohane, 13 F.3d 1079, 1080‐81 (7th Cir. 1994)

(claim regarding arbitrary denial of good‐time credits), and not, like Cunningham’s alleged

violations, the conditions of confinement.

AFFIRMED.