United States vs. Garcia, No. 06-3222 (10th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit PU BL ISH December 13, 2006 UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 06-3222 v. HECTOR GARCIA , JR., Defendant-Appellant. U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 06-3223 v. VICTOR M ANCILLA S, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of K ansas (D.C. Nos. 02-CR-10140-01-M LB; 02-CR-10140-20-M LB) Submitted on the briefs: David M . Lind, Office of United States Attorney, W ichita, Kansas, for PlaintiffAppellee. Hector Garcia, Jr., pro se. Victor M ancillas, pro se. Before M U RPH Y, SE YM OU R, and M cCO NNELL, Circuit Judges. M URPH Y, Circuit Judge. After examining the briefs and appellate records, this court has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of these appeals. 1 See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). They are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Appellants Hector Garcia, Jr. and Victor M ancillas were charged in a multi-count indictment with a litany of offenses, including conspiracy to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine. Garcia pleaded guilty to the drug conspiracy charge and w as sentenced to a term of seventy-two months incarceration by the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. M ancillas was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine, distribution of methamphetamine, and using a communication facility to facilitate the distribution of a controlled substance. M ancillas was ultimately sentenced to a ninety-seven-month term of imprisonment. United States v. M ancillas, No. 05-3328, 2006 W L 1389111 (10th Cir. M ay 18, 2006). 1 W e have consolidated the present appeals for purposes of disposition. -2- Garcia and M ancillas both state they are currently incarcerated in the M oshannon Valley Correctional Center in Phillipsburg, Pennsylvania. On M ay 15, 2006, Garcia filed a motion requesting the Kansas district court to compel the Bureau of Prisons to transfer him to a detention facility located within a five-hundred-mile radius of Arizona. In the alternative, Garcia requested that he be transferred to a Camp. M ancillas filed a nearly identical motion on M ay 19, 2006, requesting that he be transferred to a detention facility closer to his family or placed in a Camp. The district court summarily denied both motions without analysis. In his appellate brief, Garcia asserts the district court erred by failing to review the merits of his motion and asks this court to issue a memorandum order directing his transfer in the fairness of justice. Likewise, M ancillas requests this court grant him the relief he requests in the interest of justice. In the motions Appellants filed with the district court, neither sought release from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons or a shortened period of incarceration. Instead, both sought a court order directing the Bureau of Prisons to transfer them to detention facilities located closer to their families. In Boyce v. Ashcroft, 251 F.3d 911, 918, vacated as moot, 268 F.3d 953 (10th Cir. 2001), this court concluded that a request by a federal prisoner for a change in the place of confinement is properly construed as a challenge to the conditions of confinement and, thus, must be brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of -3- the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Although Boyce was vacated as moot on rehearing, we are persuaded by its reasoning. Appellants are in the lawful custody of the Bureau of Prisons. Both seek a change in the place of confinement rather than a shortened period of custody. Accordingly, Appellants challenges to their current assignment at the M oshannon Valley Correctional Center must be brought in a Bivens action. Because A ppellants claims w ere raised in motions filed in their respective criminal cases and not in civil rights complaints comporting with the requirements of Bivens, they were properly denied by the district court. The judgments of the district court denying Appellants motions are affirmed. -4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
