NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 20 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LONNIE EUGENE LILLARD, No. 23-35049

Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00966-SB

v.

MEMORANDUM*

DEWAYNE HENDRIX, Warden, FCI Sheridan,

Respondent-Appellee.

AMADOR SANCHEZ MENDOZA, AKA No. 23-35059 Amador Sanchez, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00559-SB Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

DEWAYNE HENDRIX, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Stacie F. Beckerman, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 6, 2024**

* 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 Portland, Oregon

Before: RAWLINSON, FORREST, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Lonnie Lillard and Amador Mendoza1 appeal the magistrate judge’s denial

of the consolidated 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petitions filed by current and former

individuals in custody at the Federal Correctional Institution Sheridan (“FCI

Sheridan”) (together, “Petitioners”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291

and 2253, and we affirm.

The district court correctly dismissed Petitioners’ petitions for lack of

jurisdiction because their conditions of confinement claims are not cognizable in

habeas. See Pinson v. Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1059, 1068–69 (9th Cir. 2023), cert.

denied sub nom. Sands v. Bradley, 144 S. Ct. 1382 (2024). In Pinson, we

acknowledged that there may be “circumstances when a challenge to the conditions

of confinement is properly brought in a petition for writ of habeas corpus,” but

concluded that the facts alleged failed to establish that “no set of conditions exist

that would cure the constitutional violations.” Id. at 1075. The facts alleged by

Petitioners here are materially indistinguishable from those alleged in Pinson.

The district court did not err by dismissing Petitioners’ habeas petition

without assessing whether Petitioners stated viable non-habeas claims in the

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 Appellants concede that Mendoza’s appeal is moot because he was released from federal custody on October 20, 2023.

2 alternative. Petitioners repeatedly disavowed bringing non-habeas claims, argued

that they need not comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act specifically

because they were bringing their claims under habeas, and relied on the

Administrative Procedure Act and Declaratory Judgment Act solely as bases for

granting injunctive and declaratory relief “while the petition [was] pending.”

Although a district court has discretion to convert a habeas petition into a civil

rights action in certain circumstances, see id. at 1075–76, Petitioners abandon any

such argument on appeal.

AFFIRMED.

3