United States District Court, District of Colorado
ORDER DIRECTING APPLICANT TO CURE DEFICIENCIES
Gordon P. Gallagher United States Magistrate Judge
Applicant, Ekueta Palega, is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) at the Federal Correctional Institution in Englewood, Colorado. Mr. Palega initiated this action on January 14, 2015, by filing an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1). In the Application, Mr. Palega challenges his prison security classification. He contends that the BOP has assessed him improperly with a public safety factor and, as a result, he is not eligible for placement in a minimum security prison. For relief, he asks that his security classification be modified so that he can be considered for minimum custody housing.
“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.” See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). “Petitions under § 2241 are used to attack the execution of a sentence, see Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir.1996). It is well established in the Tenth Circuit that § 2241 is an improper vehicle for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of his confinement. See McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir. 1997). Generally, a federal prisoner’s challenge to his conditions of confinement is cognizable under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Standifer v. Ledezma, 653 F.3d 1276, 1280 (10th Cir. 2011).
Because a favorable resolution of Mr. Palega’s claim that he is entitled to a lesser security classification would not automatically require his immediate or earlier release, his suit arises under Bivens. See e.g. Stanko v. Quay, No. 09-1214, 356 F. App’x 208, 209-10 (10th Cir. Dec. 16, 2009) (unpublished) (challenges to federal prisoner’s security classification must be raised in a Bivens action).
After review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1(b), the court has determined that the submitted document is deficient as described in this order. Mr. Palega will be directed to cure the following if he wishes to pursue his claims. Any papers that Mr. Palega files in response to this order must include the civil action number on this order. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 Motion and Affidavit:
(1) X is not submitted
(2)_ is missing affidavit
(3) X is missing certified copy of prisoner's trust fund statement for the 6-month period immediately preceding this filing
(4)_ is missing certificate showing current balance in prison account
(5)_ is missing required financial information
(6)_ is missing an original signature by the prisoner
(7)_ is not on proper form (must use the court’s current form):
(8)_ names in caption do not match names in caption of complaint, petition or habeas application
(9) X other: Mr. Palega may pay the $400.00 filing fee, in lieu of submittinga § ...