Brian L. Brown v. Barbara Von Blanckensee

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIAN L. BROWN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BARBARA VON BLANCKENSEE,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 20-15748
D.C. No. 4:19-cv-00436-RCC-LCK
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
AUG 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-15748
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 of 2 --