ORDER

JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge.

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon a sua sponte review of the file. Petitioner Marc Hall is a federal prisoner serving a life sentence. On September 29, 2011, Hall filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting two claims under the Fifth Amendment: (1) the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") systematically punished mental-health related conduct without due process of law, and (2) the BOP improperly transferred him to a Special Management Unit. (Doc. 1). The Court dismissed the petition, concluding that Hall had not presented evidence of a mental health condition and that the relief Hall requested was not available through a habeas petition. (Doc. 19). Hall appealed, arguing that the Court erred by failing to consider evidence in the record and by failing to liberally construe his petition as a civil rights claim. (Doc. 22). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the Court erred because prison medical records diagnosed Hall with bipolar disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and mood disorder. Hall v. Warden, FCC Coleman-USP I, 571 Fed. App'x 826 (11th Cir. 2014). The Eleventh Circuit also found that the Court erred by failing to consider whether the relief sought by Hall was available through another remedy. Id.

As relief, Hall seeks expungement of all his prison disciplinary convictions from 1996 to the present, release from the Special Management Unit, and placement in an alternative mental health facility. (Doc. 13 at 2). Hall's request for expungement of his disciplinary convictions and transfer to an alternative mental health facility, and challenge to the procedures used by the Bureau of Prisons during prison disciplinary proceedings, may be pursued in a civil rights action.1 See generally Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749 (2004); Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005); In re Baker, 469 Fed. Appx. 89, 90 (3d Cir. 2012) (unpublished) ("A request for a prison transfer is not cognizable under habeas.") (citing Prieser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973)); Dopp v. Jones, 562 Fed. Appx. 637, 640 (10th Cir. 2014) (unpublished) ("a request or a `challenge to a transfer from one security level to another or from one prison to another is cognizable under § 1983.'") (quoting Boutwell v. Keating, 399 F.3d 1203, 1209 (10th Cir. 2005)). His request for release from the Special Management Unit,2 however, is properly treated as a request for habeas corpus relief. Cf. Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1053 (11th Cir. 2003) ("Under our precedent, `it is proper for a district court to treat a petition for release from administrative segregation as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus' because `such release falls into the category of fact or duration of . . . physical imprisonment delineated in Preiser v. Rodriguez.'") (quoting Krist v. Ricketts, 504 F.2d 887, 887-88 (5th Cir. 1974)).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt.1) is DISMISSED. The dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of an amended petition, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, challenging only Petitioner's confinement in the Special Management Unit.

2. To the extent that Petitioner wishes to challenge the conditions of his confinement, i.e., the procedures used by the Bureau of Prisons during prison disciplinary proceedings, and the failure to provide adequate mental health treatment/request for transfer to medical health facility, his proper avenue for relief is to file a civil rights/Bivens action in a new case with a new case number.3