Motyka v. Warden FCI Three Rivers

1 / 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
PHILLIP MOTYKA,
Petitioner,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:26-CV-00112
WARDEN FCI THREE RIVERS,
Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus action
(D.E. 1). On April 16, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock issued his
“Memorandum and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge” (M&R, D.E. 12),
recommending that Petitioner’s action be dismissed. Petitioner timely filed his objections
(D.E. 17) on April 27, 2026.
The Magistrate Judge recommends that this action be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. That is because it challenges Petitioner’s conditions of confinement rather than
the duration of his incarceration. In particular, Petitioner complains of being dropped from
the MAT drug treatment program, which he claims is medically necessary, because of false
allegations that he was diverting his medication—a charge he claims is disciplinary in
nature and which should have triggered due process rights to an opportunity to appear and
be heard in opposition.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 08, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:26-cv-00112 Document 18 Filed 05/08/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2 / 2
Rather than address the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdictional analysis regarding the
nature of the case as a conditions of confinement case improperly brought under the habeas
corpus statute, Petitioner simply reurges the merits of his complaint. The objections are
OVERRULED as failing to address the jurisdictional issue.
Having reviewed the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations set
forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation, as well as Petitioner’s
objections, and all other relevant documents in the record, and having made a de novo
disposition of the portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation
to which objections were specifically directed, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s
objections and ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (D.E. 8) and motion for
temporary restraining order (D.E. 11) are DENIED AS MOOT and this action is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as improperly filed under habeas corpus
jurisdiction.
ORDERED on May 8, 2026.
_______________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-00112 Document 18 Filed 05/08/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2