transform the matter into a habeas corpus action. Furthermore, Rios’ argument that he was held indefinitely in disciplinary segregation without due process under the guise of maximum custody does not indicate the loss of previously earned good time credit or other challenges to disciplinary proceedings which may be reviewed in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Rec. doc. 16, at 7-8 (Order, filed June 6, 2003). The court therefore dismissed Mr. Rios’s petition without prejudice to the filing of a civil rights complaint challenging the condition of his confinement. II. DISCUSSION In his appellate brief, Mr. Rios argues that the district court erred in failing to conduct a “Sandin analysis.” Aplt’s Br. at 3. He maintains that the conditions to which he was subjected in maxim .1988) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Rios’s arguments raise legal issues that
holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars the recovery of monetary damages under rluipa when state officials are sued in their official capacities holding that the eleventh amendment immunity bars title i employment discrimination claims against a state for monetary damages holding that the feres doctrine bars a military prisoners claims for monetary damages holding that inmates transfer mooted claims for injunctive and declaratory relief but that claims for monetary damages were not moot holding that plaintiffs failure to raise his constitutional claims in the military court system bars him from raising them in federal court