Case: 23-40699 Document: 71-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2025
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-40699
FILED
April 3, 2025
____________
Lyle W. Cayce
William Maxwell, Clerk
Petitioner—Appellant,
versus
Albert Thomas, III, Warden, FCI Beaumont Low,
Respondent—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:22-CV-40
______________________________
Before Elrod, Chief Judge, and Davis and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:
William Maxwell, federal prisoner #71944-279, appeals the dismissal
of his
petition for writ of habeas corpus. He argues that the
district court erred in determining that he failed to exhaust administrative
remedies under the First Step Act of 2018.
We have previously held that a habeas petition “is the proper vehicle
to seek release from custody,” while a civil rights suit under Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
(1971), is
the “proper vehicle to attack unconstitutional conditions of confinement and
Case: 23-40699 Document: 71-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2025
No. 23-40699
prison procedures.” Melot v. Bergami,
(5th Cir. 2020).
“The ‘bright-line rule’ our court has adopted is that if a favorable
determination of the prisoner’s claim would not automatically entitle him to
accelerated release, then the proper vehicle is a civil rights suit.” Id.1
Here, the nature of Maxwell’s requested relief is transfer to a halfway
house or home confinement. Under Melot’s “bright-line rule,” neither form
of relief would entitle him to accelerated release, so the relief he seeks is
properly brought in a civil rights suit. Accordingly, we need not address
whether Maxwell sufficiently exhausted his administrative remedies
because, even if he did, § 2241 is not the proper vehicle. Mosley v. Reiser, No.
22-60625,
2023 WL 3947169
, at *1 (5th Cir. June 12, 2023); Melot, 970, F.3d
at 599; see also Scott v. Johnson,
(5th Cir. 2000) (“[T]his
Court may affirm the denial of habeas relief on any ground supported by the
record.”).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
_____________________
1
Shortly after we decided Melot, we concluded in an unpublished opinion that a
writ of habeas corpus was the proper vehicle to seek at-home confinement. Cheek v. Warden
of Fed. Med. Ctr.,
835 F. App’x 737
, 739 (5th Cir. 2020). Unpublished cases are nonprecedential. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. Further, Cheek addressed at-home confinement under
the CARES Act. Cheek, 835 F. App’x at 739. Maxwell initially sought relief under the
CARES Act, but he has waived that issue on appeal. The relief he seeks arises under the
First Step Act’s Elderly Offender Pilot Program, which was at issue in Melot. Accordingly,
we follow Melot under the rule of orderliness.
2
