Case Name: Paul Edward SHOOK, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lionel C. APKER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-20
Citations: 472 F. App'x 702
Docket Number: No. 11-15735
Parties: Paul Edward SHOOK, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lionel C. APKER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 702–703

Head Matter:
Paul Edward SHOOK, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lionel C. APKER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-15735.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 2012.
Filed April 20, 2012.
Paul Edward Shook, Jr., Tucson, AZ, pro se.
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Paul Edward Shook, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Shook contends the district court erred by treating his claims of inadequate medical care as arising under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), rather than section 2241. We disagree. Despite the relief he seeks, Shook's claims concern the conditions of his confinement and are properly brought under Bivens.
The district court acted within its discretion when it dismissed Shook's petition without prejudice for failure to comply with the court's order to file an amended complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.1992).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.