Opinion ID: 4564364
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Transfer Claim

Text: On appeal, Mr. Crosby asserts that the district court erred by failing to convert his § 2241 petition into a Bivens action. Mr. Crosby failed to raise this issue below, by either responding to the Warden’s jurisdictional arguments upon reply or by moving the district court to convert his habeas petition into a civil rights action. Accordingly, we review for plain error. See Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1130 (10th Cir. 2011). The district court did not err in declining to sua sponte convert Mr. Crosby’s Transfer Claim into a Bivens action. Although a district court may have discretion to convert a pro se prisoner’s claim, nothing in this court’s prior rulings indicates that failure to do so is error. Indeed, the cases Mr. Crosby relies upon recognize that the decision to convert a prisoner’s habeas petition into a civil rights action is committed to the district court’s discretion. See Bell v. United States, No. 08-CV-335-WDMKLM, 2009 WL 1609396, at  (D. Colo. June 9, 2009) (acknowledging the court could dismiss for lack of jurisdiction); Jones v. Chester, No. 08-3285-RDR, 2009 WL 331614, at  (D. Kan. Feb. 10, 2009) (same). Furthermore, this court has previously directed district courts to dismiss, without prejudice, a challenge to the place of confinement improperly brought under § 2241. See, e.g., Palma-Salazar v. Davis, 3 677 F.3d 1031, 1039 (10th Cir. 2012). Here, the district court similarly dismissed, without prejudice, Mr. Crosby’s Transfer Claim improperly brought under § 2241. Accordingly, the district court did not err.