*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

DEC 31 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

BARTON LEE MURPHY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH BROOKS,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 97-1175

(D.C. No. 97-S-186)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, EBEL and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.

Mr. Murphy appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
-2-

petition for writ of habeas corpus. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 and affirm.

Before going to prison, Mr. Murphy sold drugs. As a result of this activity,

he was convicted of a number of federal drug-related offenses and sentenced to

ten years in federal custody. In 1992, he escaped and eventually fled to Mexico. 

He was recaptured, brought back to the United States, and held in the El Paso

County Jail. While in the El Paso facility, Mr. Murphy developed a bad rash,

which he contends was not properly treated.

Mr. Murphy, whose jailhouse avocation appears to be litigation, filed a 28

U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district court. In the

petition, he requested a sentence reduction to compensate for the alleged medical

mistreatment. The district court dismissed his complaint, finding "28 U.S.C. §

2241 is not an appropriate vehicle to obtain relief for the allegedly

unconstitutional conditions of confinement to which [Mr. Murphy] was

subjected." We review de novo a district court's denial of a habeas corpus

petition. See Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996).

Mr. Murphy provides no authority whatsoever to buttress his request for a
1

 Indeed, it appears Mr. Murphy has filed these claims in the United States

District Court for the Western District of Texas.

-3-

sentence reduction based on mistreatment by prison authorities. This court has

already ruled that medical mistreatment claims are "not cognizable in a federal

habeas corpus proceeding." United States v. Sisneros, 599 F.2d 946, 947 (10th

Cir. 1979) (discussing a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding). As the court pointed out

in Sisneros, Mr. Murphy must "resort to the Federal Tort Claims Act or a Bivenstype action" to obtain a remedy for the alleged wrongs of which he complains.1

Id.

Mr. Murphy is no longer incarcerated at the El Paso County Jail, and his

§ 2241 motion does not challenge the constitutional validity of his current

confinement. As such, the district court properly dismissed this petition.

The decision below is AFFIRMED and the appeal is DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

WADE BRORBY

United States Circuit Judge