Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus jurisdiction extends to allow federal courts to adjudicate an inmate's claims challenging the constitutionality of his conditions of confinement under the Eighth Amendment, or whether such claims are cognizable only through § 1983 actions or other remedies

and undersigned counsel’s need for additional time to prepare a petition that will assist the Court in deciding whether to grant certiorari. Importance of issues presented. As this Court—just last Term—indicated an inmate could do, Sands sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to “challenge[] ‘the legality of his detention’ without attacking the validity of his sentence.” See Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. , 143 S. Ct. 1857, 1867 (June 22, 2023). His petition alleges that under no set of circumstances could his ongoing imprisonment satisfy the Eighth Amendment and therefore he is entitled to immediate release. Sands alleges that his severe preexisting health conditions increase his risk of death 1 The decision is reported under the caption of the companion case: Pinson v. Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1059 (9th Cir. 2023). Sands’s case is mis-captioned in the Ninth Circuit, an error that counsel is currently addressing. 2 and serious bodily injury should he catch COVID-19 and thus knowingly confining him in poorly-ventilated living conditions with prisoners testing positive for COVID19 constitutes deliberate indifference. Pursuant to Section 2241, he sought to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement. The district court dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction without reaching the merits of his Eighth Amendment claim. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court lacked habeas jurisdiction under Section 2241 for Sands’s claims regarding his conditions of confinement. In doing so, it openly split with other circuits which had found habeas jurisdiction over claims based on similar prison conditions, including for inmates. Compare Op. 27 & n. 12 (noting that “our sister circuits go astray”), with Wilson v. Williams, 961 F.3d 829, 838 (6th Cir. 2020) (courts have habeas jurisdiction under Section 2241 to adjudicate inmates’ claims regarding prison conditions), and Hope v. Warden York Cty. Prison, 972 F.3d 310, 324 (3d Cir. 2020) (habeas jurisdiction is “a means of challenging unconstitutional conditions of confinement”). The Ninth Circuit’s decision punctuates a split on a question that this Court has “left open’”—i.e., “whether [inmates] might be able to challenge their confinement conditions via a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.” Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 144 (2017); see also, e.g., Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023, 1037—1038 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (acknowledging split among circuits as to whether habeas jurisdiction exists under Section 2241 for claims about conditions of confinement); Spencer v. Haynes, 774 F.3d 467, 470—471 (8th Cir. 2014) (same); Farabee v. Clarke, 967 F.3d 380, 395 (4th Cir. 2020) (same); Poree v. Collins, 866 F.3d 235, 243—244 (5th Cir. 2017) (same). An extension of time is warranted to ensure that this exceptionally important question of habeas jurisdiction is appropriately addressed. Even beyond that, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling runs contrary to a premise that this Court assumed just a few months ago in Jones: that habeas jurisdiction under Section 2241 remain available to prisoners proceeding on challenges.” Jones, 143 S. Ct. at 1867. An extension of time is warranted to allow counsel to adequately prepare a petition addressing these intersecting precedents on the exceptionally important question of habeas jurisdiction in the wake of Jones. New counsel’s need for additional time. Applicant has secured pro bono counsel to file his petition and is in the process of onboarding that counsel. New counsel was not involved in the proceeding below and will require additional time to familiarize themselves with the record, research the complex legal issues presented, and prepare a petition that fully and concisely addresses the important issues of habeas jurisdiction raised by the decision below. Preparing the petition will require careful study of habeas precedents and history to fully present the issues in a manner that will be most helpful to the Court. Undersigned counsel