Anthony Leon Greenhill v. HARLEY LAPPIN, Director (FBOP); J. L. NORWOOD, Warden (USP-V)

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY LEON GREENHILL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HARLEY LAPPIN, Director (FBOP); J. L.
NORWOOD, Warden (USP-V),
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 08-56032
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02501-JFW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
FILED
APR 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-56032 2
Federal prisoner Anthony Leon Greenhill appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Greenhill contends that prison officials have been retaliating against him by
mishandling his special/legal mail and that this constitutes an additional and
unconstitutional restraint warranting habeas relief. He further argues that he is
entitled to an evidentiary hearing on this claim. The appropriate remedy for
Greenhill’s claim, which relates to the conditions of his confinement, lies in a civil
rights action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),
and the First Amendment. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 498-99 (1973)
(holding that habeas relief applies when a prisoner challenges the fact or duration
of his confinement, and a § 1983 action is the proper remedy for a constitutional
violation relating to the conditions of prison life); Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330,
331-32 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that a federal prisoner challenging the execution of
his sentence must bring a § 2241 habeas petition, whereas a prisoner complaining
of civil rights violations must bring a Bivens action). Moreover, because the record
conclusively shows that Greenhill is not entitled to § 2241 habeas relief, the district
court did not abuse its discretion by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing. See
Anderson v. United States, 898 F.2d 751, 753 (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam).

-- 2 of 3 --

08-56032 3
Greenhill also contends that the district judge did not have all of the
necessary evidence before him when determining whether to dismiss the petition
because the magistrate judge did not allow Greenhill’s “Appendix Addendum” to
be filed. Greenhill has not met his burden of showing that the magistrate judge
abused his discretion by rejecting the document on the basis that it failed to comply
with the local rules. See Delange v. Dutra Const. Co., 183 F.3d 916, 919 n.2 (9th
Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (stating that district courts “‘have broad discretion in
interpreting and applying their local rules’”) (quoting Miranda v. Southern Pac.
Transp., 710 F.2d 516, 521 (9th Cir. 1983)).
Further, the district court properly dismissed the action with prejudice after
noting the deficiencies of Greenhill’s § 2241 petition and giving him multiple
opportunities to properly allege a Bivens action. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d
1172, 1177-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal with prejudice of civil rights
complaint for repeated failures to corrected noted pleading shortcomings).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --