marks omitted). Here, Mr. Rios’s allegations address the conditions of his confinement and thus should be raised in a civil rights action. Although in his prayer for relief Mr. Rios seeks a ten-day sentence credit for each day he has allegedly served improperly in maximum custody, he provides no support for his contention that he would be entitled to such relief if he prevailed on his substantive claims. Instead, the requested sentence credit appears to be an attempt to avoid the strictures of the Feres doctrine. In our view, a prisoner may not transform a civil rights action involving the conditions of his confinement into a § 2241 petition merely by seeking sentencing relief in a manner not connected to his substantive claims. Cf. Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 665 (7th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we AFFIRM the
holding that prisoner could not file a petition for mandamus challenging the bops determination that he was ineligible to be considered for a reduction in his sentence although bourkes success on this claim would not necessarily result in his being released any earlier it would raise that possibility and thus have a probabilistic impact upon the duration of his custody holding that heck and edwards do not bar a prisoners  1983 claim alleging bias by the prisons hearing officer in a disciplinary proceeding affecting only the conditions but not the fact or duration of confinement holding that the district court mischaracterized a state prisoners  1983 claim as a petition for writ of habeas corpus because the prisoner did not attack his conviction challenge the fact or length of his confinement or seek immediate release from prison holding that a state prisoner must bring his claim in habeas only if by prevailing he would necessarily prove the unlawfulness of his conviction or confinement holding that the possibility that a prisoners claim had the potential to affect the duration of his confinement was too attenuated from this proceeding to state a claim under  2254