NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM JOHN GREEN,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.
W. Z. JENKINS II,

Defendant

- Appellee

. No. 21

- 55391

D.C. No. 2:21

- cv
- 01456

- DMG

- GJS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 14, 2021 * *

Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner William John Green appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismiss ing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition , the

order den ying his motion for reconsideration, and the order denying his motion for
release pending appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 23(b)

. We have

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 16 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 55391

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part and dismiss in part

.
The district court dismissed Green ’s § 2241 habeas petition and denied

reconsideration on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction over Green’s claims
challenging his conviction and sentence, and his claims challenging the conditions
of his confinement were not cognizable in habeas. On appeal, Green contends that

the district court erred by concluding that it lacked habeas jurisdiction over his

claim that the Bureau of Prisons violated his Eighth Amendment rights by its
alleged mismanagement of the C OVID

- 19 pandemic and inability to care for his
underlying health conditions

. We need not resolve this issue because Green’s
Eighth Amendment claim is now moot. Green ’s claim was premised on conditions
at the Metropolitan Detention Center, Los Angeles (“MDC LA”) , where he was
housed when he filed his petition. After Green filed his motion for
reconsideration, however, he was transferred to FCI Terminal Island , a facility that

could better meet his medical needs

. As a result, Green ’s claim for habeas relief
premised on conditions at MDC LA is now moot , s ee Dille y v. Gunn , 64 F.3d

1365, 1368

- 69 (9th Cir. 1995), and we must dismiss the appeal insofar as it
challenges the district court’s resolution of that claim

. By this disposition, we
express no opinion as to whether Green may file a § 2241 habeas petition seeki ng

his immediate release based on conditions at FCI Terminal Island

. We further conclude that the district court properly determined that it lacked3 21

- 55391

jurisdiction over Green’s challenges to his sentence and allegations of ineffective

assistance of counsel be cause those claims did not meet the escape hatch of 28
U.S.C. § 2255(e). See Stephens v. Herrera , 464 F.3d 895, 897

- 98 (9th Cir. 2006).
In light of our disposition of this appeal, Green’s challenge to the district
court’s order denying his Rule 23(b) motion is moot. Green’s renewed request to

this c ourt for release pending appeal is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

.