Maujer v. Bureau of Prisons

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOSHUA ALAN MAUJER, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-340-R
)
WARDEN, FEDERAL TRANSFER )
CENTER OKLAHOMA CITY, )
)
Respondent. )
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Joshua Alan Maujer, a federal prisoner proceeding
pro se, seeks a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 7). United States District Judge David L. Russell
has referred this matter to the undersigned magistrate judge for initial proceedings
consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). Upon initial review, the undersigned
recommends that the Court DISMISS the Petition.
I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
The Court is required to review habeas petitions promptly and to “summarily
dismiss [a] petition without ordering a responsive pleading,”
Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644,
656 (2005), “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.”
See R. 4, R. Governing § 2254
Cases in U.S. Dist. Ct.1
1 The district court may apply any or all” of the Rules governing § 2254 cases to a habeas petition
brought under § 2241. R. 1(b), R. Governing § 2254 Cases in U.S. Dist. Ct.
Case 5:26-cv-00340-R Document 10 Filed 04/30/26 Page 1 of 4

2
II. THE PETITION
Mr. Maujer is currently in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
serving a 108-month sentence of imprisonment for distribution of methamphetamine in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and is currently on home confinement,
subject to certain restrictions.
See ECF No. 7:2; ECF No. 89,
United States of America v.
Maujer, Case No. CR-19-173-R (W.D. Okla. July 16, 2025). Petitioner has filed a habeas
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the conditions of his home confinement,
arguing that the travel restrictions imposed upon him interfere with his employment,
specifically, preventing him from “performing his job duties and maintaining stable
employment.” (ECF No. 7:2). As relief, Mr. Maujer requests the Court “order the Bureau
of Prisons to modify [his] home confinement restrictions to allow work-related travel or
grant appropriate relief including transition to supervised release.” (ECF No. 7:8).
III. DISMISSAL OF PETITION
Habeas corpus and civil rights actions are separate and distinct. On the one hand,
“the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of
that custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal
custody.”
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). “Petitions under § 2241 are
used to attack the execution of a sentence, . . . [while] § 2254 habeas and § 2255
proceedings, . . . are used to collaterally attack the validity of a conviction and sentence.”
McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 1997);
see also
Palma-Salazar v. Davis, 677 F.3d 1031, 1035 (10th Cir. 2012) (discussing distinction
Case 5:26-cv-00340-R Document 10 Filed 04/30/26 Page 2 of 4

3
between habeas corpus claims pursuant to § 2241 and conditions of confinement claims
raised in civil rights actions).
On the other hand, “prisoners who wish to challenge only the conditions of their
confinement, as opposed to its fact or duration, must do so through civil rights lawsuits
filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388
(1971) - not through federal habeas proceedings.”
Standifer v. Ledezma, 653 F.3d 1276,
1280 (10th Cir. 2011). Constitutional attacks pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or
Bivens that
do not affect the fact or duration of confinement are not grounds for federal habeas
corpus relief and therefore should not be brought in a habeas corpus petition.
See Nelson
v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004).
Here, Mr. Maujer seeks to have this Court order the BOP to modify the conditions
of his home confinement, thus he is clearly challenging the conditions of his confinement
and his challenge is not proper under Section 2241. Furthermore, the Tenth Circuit Court
of Appeals has states that “courts have no statutory role regarding conditions of
confinement, including home confinement.”
United States v. Read-Forbes, 843 F. App’x
131, 133 (10th Cir. 2021). Thus, to the extent Petitioner seeks an order adjudicating his
right to home confinement, such relief is unobtainable through a § 2241 petition, and the
Court should dismiss the Petition.
IV. RECOMMENDATION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
Based upon the foregoing analysis, it is recommended that the Amended Petition
(ECF No. 7) be DISMISSED.
Case 5:26-cv-00340-R Document 10 Filed 04/30/26 Page 3 of 4

4
The Petitioner is advised of his right to file an objection to this Report and
Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by May 18, 2026, in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The parties are further advised that failure to make
timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review
of both factual and legal issues contained herein.
Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120,
1123 (10th Cir. 2010).
V. STATUS OF REFERRAL
This Report and Recommendation terminates the referral by the District Judge in this
matter.
ENTERED on April 30, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00340-R Document 10 Filed 04/30/26 Page 4 of 4