where the defendants are federal actors). It follows that “if [the petitioner] is seeking a different program or location or environment, then he is challenging the conditions rather than the fact of his confinement and his remedy is under civil rights law....” Graham v. Broglin, 922 F.2d 379, 381 (7th Cir.1991). Even though nothing in IIRIRA precludes jurisdiction in this Court over claims challenging the conditions of confinement, Ka-mara’s challenges to the adequacy of his medical treatment do not concern the fact, duration or degree of his confinement, but rather the conditions of his confinement. His claims of inadequate medical treatment, “substantial” though they may be, thus do not form the basis of a habeas corpus action. See Ramallo v. Reno, 114 F.3d 1210, 1214 (D.C.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). That Kamara’s petition seeks the relief of a
holding alien not denied judicial review because habeas was available holding that district courts retain jurisdiction after iirira to decide habeas corpus challenges involving pure questions of law holding that statelaw admissibility questions raise no federal habeas issues holding habeas review was available to federal prisoner claiming actual innocence who was barred from bringing a successive  2255 motion because the denial of collateral review would raise sufficiently serious constitutional questions under the eighth amendment and the due process clause recognizing that after iirira habeas review remains available  to raise substantial constitutional questions