Case Name: Steven A. JOHNSON, Appellant v. WARDEN CANAAN USP
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-19
Citations: 699 F. App'x 125
Docket Number: No. 17-1981
Parties: Steven A. JOHNSON, Appellant v. WARDEN CANAAN USP
Judges: Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 125–127

Head Matter:
Steven A. JOHNSON, Appellant v. WARDEN CANAAN USP
No. 17-1981
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
September 7, 2017
(Opinion filed: October 19, 2017)
Steven A. Johnson, Pro Se
Kate L. Mershimer, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Steven A. Jphnson appeals from an order of the District Court dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We will summarily affirm.
Johnson filed his habeas petition challenging the mail procedures at the United States Penitentiary—Canaan, where he is a federal inmate. Specifically, he alleged that he was not receiving his magazine subscriptions, and that his legal mail was processed through "regular mail channels" and opened outside his presence. The District Court summarily dismissed the § 2241 petition after determining that Johnson did not attack the validity of his detention and that the relief he sought was not available through a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The order dismissing the petition was without prejudice to Johnson's right to pursue his claims in a properly filed civil rights action. This appeal ensued.
' We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the District Court's order dismissing the § 2241 petition. See Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 119 (3d Cir. 2002). We may summarily affirm if there is no substantial question presented by the appeal. See Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.
The District Court's dismissal of Johnson's § 2241 petition without prejudice was proper. Section 2241 "confers habeas jurisdiction to hear the petition of a federal prisoner who is challenging not the validity but the execution of his sentence." Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 241 (3d Cir. 2005). The Court correctly reasoned that Johnson was challenging the conditions of his confinement rather than the execution of his sentence, and thus that habeas corpus was not an available remedy. See Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542 (3d Cir. 2002). The proper means for seeking relief for these conditions of confinement claims is a civil rights action against the Bureau of Prisons under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), after available administrative remedies have been exhausted, 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007).
Accordingly, because this appeal does not raise a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.
This disposition is not an opinion'of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
. Generally, an order dismissing an action without prejudice is not immediately appeal-able. Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951 (3d Cir. 1976) (per curiam). "Only if the plaintiff cannot amend or declares his intention to stand on his complaint does the order become final and appealable," Id. at 951-52. As discussed infra, Johnson cannot amend his § 2241 petition to remedy the defect to his complaint; he would have to file a different type of action. See Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1083 (3d Cir. 1995). The District Court's order thus terminated the action and was immediately appealable. See id.
. Johnson cites to Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 121 S.Ct. 714, 148 L.Ed.2d 635 (2001), as authority that his claims are cognizable in a § 2241 proceeding. His reliance is misplaced, however, as the claim in Lopez, which challenged a Bureau of Prison's regulation under which the petitioner was denied early release, clearly regarded the execution of the petitioner's sentence,