Wheeler v. Carver, et al.

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
BRADLEY WHEELER,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN ALICIA CARVER;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS
WORKING ON UNIT G; DEPUTY
WARDEN NICODEMUS; B.
CROCKETT; GOVERNOR BRAD
LITTLE; ALL OFFICES OF STATE OF
IDAHO; JUDGE ORE; JUDGE AMES;
JUDGE PETTY; ALL IDAHO STATE
POLICE; CANYON COUNTY SHERIFF
KIERAN DONOHUE; and ALL CANYON
COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES,
Respondents.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00024-AKB
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Bradley Wheeler’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus. This case is Petitioner’s latest of many cases in which he has challenged the same Idaho
state court conviction. See Wheeler v. Ross, No. 1:24-cv-00586-BLW (D. Idaho, filed Dec. 5,
2024); Wheeler v. Petty, No. 1:24-cv-00593-DCN (D. Idaho, filed Dec. 9, 2024); Wheeler v. Petty,
No. 1:24-cv-00620-DCN (D. Idaho, filed Dec. 18, 2024); Wheeler v. Petty, No. 1:25-cv-00028-
DCN (D. Idaho, filed Jan. 16, 2025); Wheeler v. Petty, No. 1:25-cv-00135-AKB (D. Idaho, filed
March 10, 2025).
The Court is required to review every habeas petition upon receipt to determine whether a
petitioner may proceed. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“Habeas Rules”).
Case 1:26-cv-00024-AKB Document 6 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 4

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 2
A petition must be dismissed if “it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that
the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Id.
1. Duplicative Habeas Claim
Petitioner claims that he has been incarcerated past his full-term release date. Pet., Dkt. 1,
at 5 (“Federal Judge Richard Eismin told me that I was not to spend 1 day past 18 months in prison
on the persistent violator. I am at almost 3 years.”). Petitioner has asserted this same claim in
Wheeler v. Ross, No. 1:24-cv-00586-BLW, which remains pending.
As the Court noted in Petitioner’s first habeas case, Petitioner’s stated intention to file a
habeas corpus case every week until he is released—notwithstanding that he already has a habeas
petition pending in this Court challenging the same conviction—constitutes an abuse of process.
Wheeler v. Ross, No. 1:24-cv-00586-BLW, Dkt. 5 at 3. Petitioner intends something similar in the
instant case. Pet. at 5 (“I am going to continue to file until … I am released!!!”). Petitioner may
not file serial habeas petitions challenging the same conviction when he already has such a petition
pending. Accordingly, Petitioner’s habeas claim is subject to dismissal as duplicative.
2. Conditions-of-Confinement Claims
“[T]he 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); Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991)
(“Habeas corpus proceedings are the proper mechanism for a prisoner to challenge the legality or
duration of confinement.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Conversely, a civil rights action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper method of challenging, on constitutional grounds, a prisoner’s
conditions of confinement. Id. Therefore, “if a state prisoner’s claim does not lie at the core of
habeas corpus, it may not be brought in habeas corpus but must be brought, if at all,” under 42
Case 1:26-cv-00024-AKB Document 6 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 4

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 3
U.S.C. § 1983, the civil rights statute. Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 931 (9th Cir. 2016) (en
banc) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In addition to claiming that he has been incarcerated past his full-term release date,
Petitioner also asserts that the prison has been locked down without inmates having access to
showers, trash disposal, or inside or outside recreation. Pet. at 5. The Petition also asserts that
inmates are charged a fee to use a free television streaming service. Id. The remedy for such alleged
violations would not be an immediate or speedier release from confinement, see Preiser, 411 U.S.
at 500, but instead an award of monetary damages and/or an order requiring the cessation of
unconstitutional activities. Because these claims “do[] not lie at the core of habeas corpus,” they
are not cognizable—meaning they cannot be heard—in this habeas case. Nettles, 830 F.3d at 931.
Thus, Petitioner’s conditions-of-confinement claims are subject to dismissal.1
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice under Habeas Rule 4 because (1) the
habeas claim in the Petition is duplicative of the claim asserted in Wheeler v. Ross,
No. 1:24-cv-00586-BLW (D. Idaho), and (2) Petitioner’s other claims challenge the
conditions of Petitioner’s confinement and, as such, are not cognizable in this
habeas case.
1 This case is not the first time the Court has explained to Petitioner the difference between
habeas claims and conditions-of-confinement claims. See Wheeler v. Ross, No. 1:24-cv-00586-
BLW, Dkt. 5 at 2–3 (D. Idaho Feb. 10, 2025); Wheeler v. Petty, No. 1:24-cv-00593-DCN, Dkt. 5
at 1 n.1 (D. Idaho March 20, 2025); Wheeler v. Petty, No. 1:25-cv-00135-AKB, Dkt. 6 at 2–3 (D.
Idaho July 29, 2025); Wheeler v. Petty, No. 1:24-cv-00620-DCN, Dkt. 6 at 2–3 (D. Idaho Aug. 20,
2025); Wheeler v. Petty, No. 1:25-cv-00028-DCN, Dkt. 6 at 2 (D. Idaho Aug. 19, 2025).
Case 1:26-cv-00024-AKB Document 6 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 4

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 4
2. If Petitioner intends to pursue his conditions-of-confinement claims, he may file a
new, separate civil rights complaint. Forms for such complaints are available at the
prison resource center.
3. The Court does not find its resolution of this habeas matter to be reasonably
debatable, and a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c);
Habeas Rule 11.
DATED: February 10, 2026
_________________________
Amanda K. Brailsford
U.S. District Court Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00024-AKB Document 6 Filed 02/10/26 Page 4 of 4