Palma-Salazar v. Davis
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9081
10th Cir.2012Background
- Palma-Salazar, a Mexican citizen, was indicted in 1995 for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and was extradited from Mexico to the U.S. in 2007.
- He pleaded guilty in 2008 and was sentenced to sixteen years' imprisonment plus five years' supervised release.
- In 2010, he filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging confinement at ADX Florence, asserting Fifth and Eighth Amendment claims and treaty issues.
- The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under § 2241, treating the claims as challenges to conditions of confinement, not execution of sentence.
- The court also held the extradition treaty claim lacked independent § 2241 jurisdiction and did not show a violation of the treaty.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit held the claims must be brought via Bivens, not § 2241, and remanded for dismissal without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfer to ADX is a challenge to confinement conditions requiring Bivens rather than § 2241. | Palma-Salazar seeks transfer to a different facility, a change in confinement conditions. | Garcia/Boyce control; § 2241 applies only to factual/duration challenges, not placement within confinement. | § 2241 lacks jurisdiction; claims must be brought under Bivens. |
| Whether treaty-based extradition claims fall under § 2241 or Bivens. | Confines treaty rights as part of confinement; challenges the placement under the extradition treaty. | Treaty-based claims are challenges to conditions and not independent § 2241 relief; align with Bivens. | Treaty-based challenge is a confinement-conditions claim and falls under Bivens. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Garcia, 470 F.3d 1001 (10th Cir. 2006) (change in place of confinement belongs to Bivens, not habeas)
- Boyce v. Ashcroft, 251 F.3d 911 (10th Cir. 2001) (transfer to ADX involves confinement conditions)
- Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862 (10th Cir. 2000) (challenge to state's authority to imprison in another state)
- Wedelstedt v. Wiley, 477 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2007) (addressed § 2241 challenges to BOP placement regulations)
- Woodall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2005) (placement in community corrections center can be beyond garden-variety transfer)