Summary
holding that a federal prisoner's claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs were not cognizable in a federal habeas action
Summary of this case from Gould v. W.C.C.C.Opinion
No. 06-10348 Summary Calendar.
July 24, 2007.
Thomas McBarron, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.
Donna Kathleen Webb, U.S. Attorney's Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, USDC No. 4:05-CV-497.
Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Thomas McBarron filed an alleged 28 U.S.C. 2241 habeas corpus petition and raised claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The district court denied the petition after determining that McBarron could proceed under § 2241 and that McBarron's claims lacked merit. McBarron appeals that denial. He argues that his claims have merit and that the district court erred by not giving him sufficient opportunity to respond to Jeter's answer before denying his petition, by construing his postjudgment motion as a motion to reconsider, and by not ruling on his motion for appointment of expert witnesses. McBarron moves this court for a conference, appointed counsel, and an expedited appeal. He also requests that this court strike the appellee's brief.
McBarron was not entitled to proceed under § 2241 because his claims would not entitle him to immediate release if he prevailed on them. See Spina v. Aaron, 821 F.2d 1126, 1127-28 (5th Cir. 1987). Consequently, McBarron's claims are not cognizable in a habeas action. See id. The district court's denial of relief is AFFIRMED on this alternate basis. See Emery v. Johnson, 139 F.3d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1997). All outstanding motions are DENIED.