did not file an APA suit; he petitioned for habeas corpus under § 2241, appropriately against his custodian in the district of his custody. See Collins v. Holinka, 510 F.3d 666, 667 (7th Cir.2007). We have urged district courts to honor a prisoner’s choice of claim and cautioned against converting collateral actions into other civil actions (because of the varying requirements and restrictions concerning inmate litigation, depending on the statute invoked). Id. at 667; Richmond v. Scibana, 387 F.3d 602, 606 (7th Cir.2004); Romandine v. United States, 206 F.3d 731, 736 (7th Cir.2000). Section 2241 allows a prisoner to seek release, see Richmond, 387 F.3d at 605, if his continued custody violates the Constitution or federal laws. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); see also Reeb, 636 F.3d at 1228 (<HOLDING>). Still, Lopez has made no such claim, nor can
holding that federal courts lack jurisdiction under the apa to review discretionary decisions concerning early release for participants in residential drugtreatment programs but recognizing that judicial review remains available for allegations that bop action is contrary to established federal law or violates the united states constitution holding that the apa does not afford an implied grant of subjectmatter jurisdiction permitting federal judicial review of agency action holding that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review a final state court decision in a particular case holding that the federal habeas courts task is to determine if the state courts decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the supreme court of the united states holding that because here the statutes in issue provide for judicial review via citizen suit provisions yet do not set forth a standard for that review judicial review is limited to apa review on the administrative record