Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03017/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03017-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT AUG 1 l 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECK...:.i ... ~ HECTOR U. DePARIAS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

vs. 

J . MICHAEL QUINLAN, Director of BOP; 

G.L. HENMAN, Warden USP Leavenworth, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Cler!: · 

No. 92-3017 

(D.C. No. 91-3256-R) 

(D. Kan.) 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

After review of the record before us, we are in substantial 

agreement with the district court regarding the dismissal of 

Petitioner-appellant Hector U. DeParias's cause of action. See 

attached district court memorandum and order. In the absence of 

"a rational argument on the law or the facts," petitioner's 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P . 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 . 9 . The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 92-3017 Document: 010110276711 Date Filed: 08/11/1992 Page: 1
request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, and the appeal is 

DISMISSED . See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U. S. 438, 448 

(1962); 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d). 

SO ORDERED. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-3017 Document: 010110276711 Date Filed: 08/11/1992 Page: 2
AO 72A 

(Rev. 8/82) 

~ i I ::- r· 

I I •- - -

U. ~. ~I '. : --r, -~--;-

D ! s-: ~. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS J,J, L oc '9rL ·ii 

HECTOR U. DePARIAS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

J. MICHAEL QUINLAN, et al., 

Respondents. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) ______________________ ) 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

- . 

- -- \' E, '; ~ .'., , 

h ! i. . 

CASE NO. 91-3256-R 

This matter is before the court on petition for habeas 

corpus relief filed pursuant to 28 u.s. c. § 2241. Petitioner, a 

federal prisoner, commenced this action while incarcerated in the 

United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth , Kansas ("USPL"). During 

the pendency of this action, petitioner was transferred to the 

Federal Correctional Institution, Bastrop, Texas. 

Petitioner is serving a 20 year federal sentence and has 

a concurrent state sentence from Florida. Upon his release from 

federal custody, petitioner will be remanded to Florida authorities. 

In addition, petitioner is subject to a detainer lodged by the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service. 

Petitioner entered USPL in November 1989 . Due to his 

participation as a government witness in trials against other 

offenders, petitioner is closely monitored by BOP staff in each 

federal facility where he is housed. Following an investigation by 

USPL officials, petitioner entered general population at USPL in 

July 1990. In June 1991, CNN broadcast a film segment of a trial in 

which petitioner was identified as a government witness. 

Appellate Case: 92-3017 Document: 010110276711 Date Filed: 08/11/1992 Page: 3
AO 72A 

(Rev. 8/82) 

result of this broadcast, petitioner was placed in Administrative 

Detention for protective housing. Following further investigation, 

staff concluded petitioner might be in danger due to the broadcast. 

Petitioner was therefore transferred from USPL in September 1991. 

In this action, petitioner seeks an order directing his 

placement outside the federal prison system. For the reasons set 

forth, the court concludes petitioner is entitled to no relief in 

this action. 1 

It is well settled that prison officials have a duty to 

provide prisoners with reasonable protection from violence. See, 

~, Purvis v. Ponte, 929 F.2d 822 (1st Cir. 1991); Berry v. City 

of Muskogee, Okl., 900 F.2d 1489 (10th Cir. 1990). 

In the federal prison system, the authority to designate 

the place of a prisoner's incarceration rests with the Bureau of 

Prisons. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). The Attorney General is expressly 

required to "provide suitable quarters and provide for the 

safekeeping" and "protection" of federal prisoners, 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 4042 (b)-(c), and is authorized to contract with states for "the 

purpose of providing suitable quarters for the safekeeping, care, 

and subsistence" of federal inmates in state prisons. 18 u.s.c. 

§ 4002. 

However, while prison officials must provide inmates with 

1

The court agrees that habeas corpus is not the proper remedy 

in this matter. The writ of habeas corpus is an available remedy 

for federal prisoners who challenge the fact or duration of their 

physical confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973). 

Giving this prose petition the liberal construction to which it is 

entitled, the court concludes this action may be construed as 

appropriately brought under Bivens. See Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 

U.S. 249, 251 (1971) (per curiam) (habeas corpus petition stating 

claims cognizable under 42 u.s.c. § 1983 should be construed as an 

action under§ 1983). 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-3017 Document: 010110276711 Date Filed: 08/11/1992 Page: 4
AO 72A 

(Rev. 8/82) 

reasonable protection, it is clear an inmate has no due process 

right to be held in the facility of his preference. Olim v. 

Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245-49 (1983) . See also Meachum v. Fane, 

427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976) (the Constitution does not guarantee that a 

prisoner will be placed in a particular place). 

Because the petitioner has no protected right to be housed 

in a particular facility, the court finds he has failed to state a 

claim which implicates an actionable federal right and concludes 

this action must be dismissed. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED this action is hereby dismissed 

and all relief denied . 

The clerk of the court is directed to transmit copies of 

this Order to petitioner and to the office of the United States 

Attorney. 

n M 

DATED: This a day of January, 1992 at Topeka, Kansas . -C:C---

~~~ United States District Q~ Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-3017 Document: 010110276711 Date Filed: 08/11/1992 Page: 5