Robert O. Dinkins v. United States of America; Judge; Federal Bureau of Prisons; Warden, Usp; Lompoc Medical

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT O. DINKINS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JUDGE;
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS;
WARDEN, USP; LOMPOC MEDICAL,
Respondents-Appellees.
No. 22-56089
D.C. No.
2:21-cv-06991-CAS-KES
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Sandra M. Snyder, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 21, 2024**
San Francisco, California
Before: FRIEDLAND, SANCHEZ, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Robert Dinkins appeals the district court’s dismissal of his habeas corpus
petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which he alleges that the United
States Penitentiary, Lompoc (“USP Lompoc”), the prison at which he is
* 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
MAR 25 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
incarcerated, has not taken adequate measures to protect him from COVID-19. We
have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). We review the
district court’s denial of a habeas petition de novo, liberally construing a pro se
plaintiff’s filings. Eldridge v. Howard, 70 F.4th 543, 551–52 (9th Cir. 2023). We
vacate the district court’s decision and remand with instructions to dismiss the
petition for lack of jurisdiction.
1. Dinkins spends much of his opening brief arguing that prison officials
violated his constitutional rights by failing to adequately treat his sinus infection
and failing to provide him with wheelchair-accessible facilities. Those claims,
however, have already been dismissed in a separate action. Dinkins v. United
States, No. 22-56096, 2023 WL 8170738, at *1 (9th Cir. Sept. 13, 2023)
(dismissing Dinkins’s appeal of those claims as frivolous). He therefore may not
raise them here.1
2. Dinkins also appeals the dismissal of his claim that officials at USP
Lompoc have not adequately protected him from the risk of contracting
COVID-19. We recently held, however, that an incarcerated petitioner cannot
challenge the conditions of his confinement through a habeas petition filed under
1 Dinkins also moves to add a new claim to the appeal regarding his treatment and
conditions of confinement. But “we will not consider issues raised for the first time
on appeal.” Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowship v. County of Riverside, 948 F.3d
1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2020). Dinkins’s motion (Dkt. No. 14) is therefore DENIED.
Any claim based on new conduct may be raised in a separate proceeding.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pinson v. Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1059, 1063–76 (9th Cir. 2023).
Instead, a petitioner must challenge conditions of confinement through a petition
filed in the sentencing court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Id. at 1066–69. We explained
that a Section 2241 petition is not appropriate even where, as here, the petitioner
contends that no possible conditions of confinement could be constitutionally
permissible. Id. at 1069. The district court therefore lacked jurisdiction to consider
Dinkins’s petition. Id. at 1062.2
VACATED and REMANDED.3
2 To the extent that Dinkins’s pleadings, liberally construed, seek “compassionate
release” under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), Dinkins may only seek that relief from
his sentencing court after exhausting his administrative remedies before the Bureau
of Prisons. See United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021) (per
curiam).
3 The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

-- 3 of 3 --