Brian Brown v. Barbara Von Blanckensee ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 24 2021
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    BRIAN L. BROWN,                                 No.    20-15748
    Petitioner-Appellant,           D.C. No. 4:19-cv-00436-RCC-LCK
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    BARBARA VON BLANCKENSEE,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted August 17, 2021**
    Before:      SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
    Federal prisoner Brian L. Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s
    judgment dismissing his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     habeas corpus petition. We have
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . Reviewing de novo, see Alaimalo v. United
    States, 
    645 F.3d 1042
    , 1047 (9th Cir. 2011), we affirm.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Brown contends that the Bureau of Prisons violated his due process and First
    Amendment rights, as well as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
    Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., by removing him from the Religious Diet
    Program. As the district court correctly concluded, the appropriate remedy for
    these claims lies in a civil rights action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
    Agents, 
    403 U.S. 388
     (1971), rather than a § 2241 petition. See Tucker v. Carlson,
    
    925 F.2d 330
    , 332 (9th Cir. 1991) (federal prisoner asserting civil rights violation
    must file a Bivens action rather than a § 2241 petition); see also Hernandez v.
    Campbell, 
    204 F.3d 861
    , 864 (9th Cir. 2000) (a § 2241 petition is limited to
    challenges to “the manner, location, or conditions of a sentence’s execution”).
    Even if, as Brown asserts, his suspension from the Religious Diet Program
    constituted a disciplinary action, that action did not subject him to greater
    restrictions of his liberty sufficient to invoke habeas jurisdiction. See Bostic v.
    Carlson, 
    884 F.2d 1267
    , 1269 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds
    by Nettles v. Grounds, 
    830 F.3d 922
     (9th Cir. 2016).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     20-15748