Opinion ID: 3165086
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inadequate Medical Care Claim

Text: Claims challenging the fact or duration of a sentence fall within the “core” of habeas corpus, while claims challenging the conditions of confinement fall outside of habeas corpus law. Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 644 (2004); see also Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1238 (11th Cir. 2003) (deliberate indifference claim raised in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint); Campbell v. Sikes, 169 F.3d 1353, 1361 (11th Cir. 1999) (same). Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment when they are deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs. McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248, 1254–57 (11th Cir. 1999). However, the protections of the Eighth Amendment do not attach until after a person has been convicted and sentenced. Hamm v. DeKalb Cty., 774 F.2d 1567, 1572 (11th Cir. 1985); see also Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 392 n.6 (1989). Instead, a deliberate indifference claim raised by a pretrial detainee is governed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See Jordan v. Doe, 38 F.3d 1559, 1564 (11th Cir. 1994). Nevertheless, the standard for providing adequate medical care to pretrial detainees under the Due Process Clause is the same 5 Case: 14-15791 Date Filed: 12/23/2015 Page: 6 of 10 standard required for convicted persons under the Eighth Amendment. Hamm, 774 F.2d at 1573–74. We have held that release from custody is not an available remedy, even if a prisoner establishes an Eighth Amendment violation. Gomez v. United States, 899 F.2d 1124, 1126 (11th Cir. 1990). Instead, “[t]he appropriate Eleventh Circuit relief from prison conditions that violate the Eighth Amendment during legal incarceration is to require the discontinuance of any improper practices, or to require correction of any condition causing cruel and unusual punishment.” Id. As an initial matter, the district court correctly identified Petitioner’s inadequate medical care claim as arising under the Fifth Amendment rather than the Eighth Amendment because the Eighth Amendment does not attach until after a prisoner is convicted and sentenced. See Hamm, 774 F.2d at 1572; Jordan, 38 F.3d at 1564; see also Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693–94 (2001) (“[T]he Due Process Clause [of the Fifth Amendment] protects an alien subject to a final order of deportation . . . .”). The district court also properly determined that Petitioner’s claim did not entitle him to habeas relief. Petitioner’s § 2241 petition is not the appropriate vehicle for raising an inadequate medical care claim, as such a claim challenges the conditions of confinement, not the fact or duration of that confinement. See Nelson, 541 U.S. at 644; see also Farrow, 320 F.3d at 1238; Campbell, 169 F.3d at 6 Case: 14-15791 Date Filed: 12/23/2015 Page: 7 of 10 1361. And, in any event, even if Petitioner established a constitutional violation, he would not be entitled to the relief he seeks because release from imprisonment is not an available remedy for a conditions-of-confinement claim. See Gomez, 899 F.2d at 1126. Accordingly, the district court did not err in determining that Petitioner was not entitled to relief on this claim.