Philip Andra Grigsby v. MARK GUTIERREZ, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PHILIP ANDRA GRIGSBY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
MARK GUTIERREZ, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 22-16734
D.C. No.
4:22-cv-00451-JAS-LCK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2024**
Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Philip Andra Grigsby appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, Pinson v. Carvajal, 69
F.4th 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 2023), we affirm.
* 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
FEB 27 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16734
Grigsby contends the prison is imposing restrictions on him that are
unconstitutional and contrary to the terms of his judgment, and that prison officials
are violating his constitutional rights by denying him adequate medical care. The
district court correctly concluded that, because these claims pertain to the
conditions of his confinement, they are not cognizable in habeas. See id. at 1067-
69 (holding that allegations of “ancillary harms resulting from the conditions of
confinement” cannot be raised in a § 2241 petition).
Grigsby’s motion for an injunction is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --