Millas v. Wadas - Habeas Petition Dismissed

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 10, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Andrew Gerald Millas v. J. Wadas

District Court, S.D. Illinois

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 3:26-cv-00305

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ANDREW GERALD MILLAS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 26-cv-305-DWD
)
J. WADAS, )
)
Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Andrew Gerald Millas’ petition
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). The petitioner is
incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Marion, Illinois, and is challenging
restrictions to his phone privileges.
This matter is now before the Court for preliminary review pursuant to Rule 4 of
the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts. Rule
4 provides that upon preliminary consideration by a district judge, “[i]f it plainly appears
from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in
the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the
petitioner.” Rule 1(b) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases gives this Court
the authority to apply the rules to other habeas corpus cases like the one at bar.
DISCUSSION
A federal prisoner may file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the fact
or duration of his confinement. Hill v. Werlinger, 695 F.3d 644, 645 (7th Cir. 2012). Habeas
corpus is not, however, the proper vehicle to challenge conditions of confinement.
Robinson v. Sherrod, 631 F.3d 839, 840 (7th Cir. 2011); Graham v. Broglin, 922 F.2d 379, 380–

81 (7th Cir. 1991) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973)).
Here, Petitioner does not challenge the administration of his sentence or a
particular disciplinary proceeding that affected the execution of his sentence. Instead, he
challenges a telephone restriction imposed on his mother’s phone number (and related
facility-wide email blocks) after he allegedly directed her to post his writings online. He
contends the restriction was an extra-judicial action imposed without due process and in

violation of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He further alleges that
he was improperly held in the Special Housing Unit for 58 days during the ensuing
investigation.
These claims concern the conditions (rather than the fact or duration) of his
confinement and are not properly brought in a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Preiser

v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); Robinson v. Sherrod, 631 F.3d 839, 841 (7th Cir. Cir. 2011); Graham v. Broglin, 922 F.2d 379, 381 (7th Cir. 1991);
Saunders v. Emmerich, No. 25-CV-69-WMC, 2026 WL 674382, at *3 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 10,
2026) (“To the extent [petitioner] challenges the loss of phone, commissary, and visitation
privileges for ninety days, these allegations do not implicate a liberty interest or state a

claim upon which habeas corpus relief may be granted.”). Rather, challenges to a
prisoner's conditions of confinement must be brought in a civil rights action. Glaus v.
Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 387-88 (7th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a
claim cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
CONCLUSION

It is therefore ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, the Petition for writ of habeas corpus is
DENIED and the action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court DIRECTS the
Clerk to enter judgment accordingly.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2026
s/David W. Dugan
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge