United States Court of Appeals
                              For the Eighth Circuit
                          ___________________________

                                  No. 18-2420
                          ___________________________

                                 Larry Dean Bell, Sr.

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

                                            v.

Dennis Conard, Sheriff; Stepheny Burnett, Lt.; Devon Welch, Correctional Officer;
   Murphy, Correctional Officer; Piper, Correctional Officer; E. Weatherwax,
 Correctional Officer; S. Meier, Correctional Officer; Keil, Correctional Officer;
                           Briggs, Correctional Officer

                        lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
                                        ____________

                      Appeal from United States District Court
                   for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines
                                   ____________

                             Submitted: January 14, 2019
                               Filed: January 30, 2019
                                    [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                         ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Iowa inmate Larry Bell filed a lawsuit seeking damages and other relief against
various prison officials for what he claims is an invasion of his privacy. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The district court1 granted Bell’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
dismissed the case.

       We review the district court’s dismissal de novo. Cooper v. Schriro, 

, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). The court correctly determined that prison
officials did not violate a clearly established constitutional right by allowing female
guards to monitor Bell through surveillance cameras. See Timm v. Gunter, 

, 1102 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding “that opposite-sex surveillance of male inmates,
performed on the same basis as same-sex surveillance,” is not constitutionally
impermissible). Nor was he entitled to have his conviction overturned, as he has
requested, because this relief is only available by filing a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 

, 500 (1973). Finally, Bell raises
several new arguments that we will not consider for the first time on appeal. See
Stone v. Harry, 

, 914–15 (8th Cir. 2004) (stating that arguments “may
not be advanced for the first time on appeal”).

      The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                     ______________________________




      1
        The Honorable Rebecca Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern
District of Iowa.

                                           -2-