T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptunderthe * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ithF e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ar c h27,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
RI CK Y GAR CI A,

P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 2225 v. D . N ew M exi co DON HO OVE R; J E F F S E RN A; J OHN DO E; J OH N D OE; J OH N D OE; RO BE RT J . PER RY ; BR I A N CU LP; J O H N SH A N K S; J O E R . W I LLI A M S; DARELD L . KERBY; EDWA RD GONZ AL E S ; GI L BE RT GAR CI A; E L M E R B U S T O S , ea c h b e in g su e din theiri nd i vidual and offi ci al capac i t i es,

D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. ( D . C. N o. CI V - O 6- 23 M V / RL P)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panelhas det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s ti n the det erm i nat i onG ar ci a al s o has convi ct i ons forarm ed r obbery , aggr avat ed batt ery , es cape , 1 fir s t- d e g re e m u rd e r o f a n in m a te a n ds e c o n d -d e g re e m u rd e r o f a n in m a te . A ddi t i onal l y , w hi l e i n pr i s on, he has been i nvol ved i n a r i otand pr i s on gang and has bee n repri m and ed fo r ar son an d p ossess i on of w eapo ns and drugs. I n one of G ar ci a’ s pr evi ous l aw s ui t s , addr es s ed i nfra , the d e fe n d a n ts 2 al l eged G ar ci a w as pl ace d i n voluntary a d m in istra tiv e se g re g a tio n u p o n h is se n ten c in g b e in g c o m m u ted . A c c o rd in g to G a rc ia, h e w a s n e v e r p lac e din v o lu n tarya d m in istra tiv e se g re g a tio n . R a th e r, h e a lleg e s h e w a s p lac e din i nvo lun tary a d m in istra tiv e se g re g a tio n in re talia tio n fo r h is m u rd e rin g a w h ite corr ect i onal offi cerand hi s death s ent ence bei ng comm ut ed. -2- o f th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t.

R i ckyG ar ci a, a N ew M exi co s t at e pr i s onerpr es ent l yconfi ned atPel i can B aySt at e Pr i s on i n C al i forni a pur s uantt o the I nt er s t at e C orr ect i ons C om pact (IC C ), ap p e a ls pr o s e and i n form a p auperis from the d i stri ctcou rt ’s su a sp o n te d i s mi s s a l o f

h i s c i v i l r i g h t s c o mp l a i n t . W e a ffi rm. I n 1981, G ar ci a w as s ent ence d t o death i n N ew M exi co s t at e courtforthe m ur der of a corr ect i onal offi cer . I n N ovember1986, the G overnorof N ew 1 M e x ico c o m m u ted h is d e a th se n ten c e to life im p riso n m e n t. T h e re a f ter , G a rc ia w as re m o v ed fro m d ea th ro w an dp lace din ad m inistrati v e se g reg ati o n . In 2 February1988, G ar ci a r eques t ed a tr ans fert o an out - of- s t at e pr i s on. I n M ay 1989, he w as tr ans ferr ed t o a fe der al pr i s on i n M ar i on, I l l i noi s , w her e he w as p lac e d in a d m in istra tiv e se g re g a tio n . In S e p tem b e r 1 9 9 2 , G a rc ia w a s re tu rn e d to N e w M e x ic o a n d s e n t to th e C e n tr a l N e w M e x ic o C o rr e c tio n a l F a c ility (C N M C F ).-3-

T h e C N M C F p lac e d h im in in v o lu n tarya d m in istra tiv e se g re g a tio n d u e to h is nam e app eari ng on m anypri soners’ enem yl i st s. I n N ovember1992, G ar ci a w as agai n tr ans ferr ed— thi s t i m e t o the M i nnes ot a C orr ect i onal Faci l i ty . O n M ay11, 1993, G ar ci a att acke d and w ounded anotheri nm at e. I n J ul y1993, G ar ci a w as r eturned t o N ew M exi co and s entt o the W estern N ew M ex ico C o rrecti o n al F ac il ity . T h ere , h e w as p lace din inv o lun tary a d m in istra tiv e se g re g a tio n d u e to h is p a st v io len c e a n dh is n a m e c o n tin u in g to ap p e a r o n p riso n e rs’ e n e m ylists. O n A p ril 2 9 , 1 9 9 4 , G a rc ia w a s tra n sfe rre dto the Pel i can BaySt at e Pr i s on i n C al i forni a, w her e he i s curr ent l yconfi ned. Si nce h is a rriv a l at P e lica n B a y , h e h a s b e e n h o u se din th e S p e c ial H o u sin g U n it i n admi ni s tr at i ve s egr egat i on due t o hi s pas tconductand as s oci at i on w i th a N ew M exi co pr i s on gang. I n 1993, G ar ci a fi l ed a c i vi l r i ght s act i on ( C as e N o. C V - 93- 1286) i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC ourtof N ew M exi co aga i ns tN ew M exi co D epartm entof C o rre c tio n s (N M D C ) o fficia ls D a n H o o v e r a n dE lo yM o n d ra g o . H e a lleg e dh is tr ans fer s t o out - of- s t at e pr i s ons and hi s pl ace m enti n i nvol unt aryadmi ni s tr at i ve se g re g a tio n w e re m o tiv a ted b yra c ism a n dd o n e in re talia tio n fo r h a v in g h is d e a th se n ten c e c o m m u ted . H e a lso a ss e rte dth e d e fe n d a n ts c o n sp ire dto p lac e h im in out - of- s t at e fa ci l i t i es and i n admi ni s tr at i ve s egr egat i on. T he defendant s fi l ed a m o tio n fo r su m m a ryju d g m e n t, w h ich w a s g ra n ted . T h e c o u rt c o n c lu d e dG a rc ia pr es ent ed no s peci fi c fa ct s i n s upportof hi s r et al i at i on cl ai m s and hi s pl ace m ent-4-

in inv o lun taryad m inistrati v e se g reg ati o n an dtr an sfe rs ou t of stat e w ere r eas onabl yr el at ed t o the pr i s on’ s l egi t i m at e s ecur i tyconce rns . I tal s o found G ar ci a pr es ent ed no evi dence of an a gr eementorm eet i ng of the mi nds betw een th e d e fe n d a n t s t o s u p p o rth i s c o n s p i r a c yc l a i m. T e n y e a r s l a t e r , Ga r c i a fi l e da n o th e rc i v i l r i g h t s c o mp l a i n t( Ca s e No . CV 03 -1119 ) i n the N ew M exico D i stri ctC ou rtagainstT i m L eM ast er, John S han ks, R obertPerry , and G i l bertG ar ci a ( al l offi ci al s of the N M D C ) al l egi ng they vi ol at ed hi s E i ghth and Fourt eenth A m endmentr i ght s by( 1) unl aw ful l yconfi ni ng h i m i n a d mi n i s tr a t i v e s e g r e g a t i o n fo rs e v e n t e e n y e a r s , ( 2 ) d e n y i n g h i m a c las sifica tio n h e a rin g in a c c o rd a n c e w ith N e w M e x ico law w h ile in c a rc e ra ted in C al i forni a, ( 3) fai l i ng t o compl yw i th the I C C and t o cl as s i fyhi m underN ew M exi co l aw s , ( 4) deny i ng hi m a gr i evanc e appe al , ( 5) deny i ng hi m r ecr eat i on w hi l e i ncar cer at ed i n C al i forni a and ( 6) deny i ng hi m acc es s t o the court s by d en y ing h im ac ce ss to leg al m aterial s fro m N ew M ex ico. T h e d istri ct co u rt d is m is s e d th e c o m p la in t. W e a ffirm e d . G ar ci a v. LeMas ter , 439 F. 3d 1215, 1216 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( G ar ci a I). W e c o n c lu d e dG a rc ia’ s c laim s c o n c e rn in g h is tr eatm enti n the C al i forni a pr i s on ( hi s pl ace m enti n admi ni s tr at i ve s egr egat i on, hi s s ecur i tycl as s i fi cat i on and the deni al of r ecr eat i on) coul d onl ybe addr es s ed by C al i forni a off

i ci al s and ther efor e G ar ci a br oughthi s cl ai m i n the w r ong courtand a g a in s t th e w ro n g d e fe n d a n ts . Id. at1217- 18. T o the ext enthe w as chal l engi ng h is in c a rc e ra tio n in a d m in istra tiv e se g re g a tio n in N e w M e x ico (p rio r to h is-5-

tra n sfe r to C a lifo rn ia) , h is c laim w a s b a rre db yN e w M e x ico ’s th re e -y e a r sta tu te o f lim ita tio n s fo r c iv il r ig h ts a c tio n s . Id. at1217 n. 3. W e furtherconcluded G ar ci a w as notent i t l ed t o cl as s i fi cat i on pr ocedur es pur s uantt o N ew M exi co l aw ort o a hear i ng byN ew M exi co off i ci al s becaus e ( 1) the I C C di d notcr eat e a l i bertyi nt er es tpr ot ect ed bydue pr oces s , ( 2) appl i cat i on of C al i forni a pr ocedur es t o out - of- s t at e i nm at es hous ed i n C al i forni a pr i s ons does noti m pos e an a typi cal o r sig n ifica n t h a rd sh ip o n th e m a n d(3 ) th e IC C d o e s n o t re q u ire a re c e iv in g sta te to a d m in is te r th e c la s s ific a tio n a n dre c re a tio n ru le s o f a s e n d in g s ta te . Id. at 1218- 20. O n Jan u ary9 , 2 0 0 6 , G arc ia fil ed the c u rren t l aw su itag ains t H o o v er, S han ks, P erry , G i l bertG arci a and si x o ther curr ent and fo rm er N M D C offi ci al s, as w el l as three John D oe d efen dan t s r epresent i ng three form er N M D C offi ci al s. I n hi s ei ghtypage c om pl ai nt( excludi ng exhi bi t s ) , he al l eged s i xt een c l ai m s for r el i ef i ncl udi ng cons pi r acyunder42 U . S. C . §§ 1985 and 1986 and vi ol at i ons of hi s Fi r s t , E i ghth, and Fourt eenth A m endmentr i ght s , as w el l as vi ol at i ons of v a rio u s s tate sta tu to rya n d c o n stitu tio n a l p ro v isio n s. T h e d istric t co u rt su a sp o n te di s m i s s ed G ar ci a’ s compl ai ntunder28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) and R ul e 12( b) ( 6) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e on r es j udi cat a, fai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m and st atute of l i m i t at i on s ground s. H i s subsequ ent m oti on t o recon si der w as al so deni ed.In 2 0 0 5 , G a rc ia filed a c iv il righ ts la w su it ag a in st v a rio u s C a lifo rn ia 3 p riso n o fficia ls in th e N o rth e rn D istric t o f C a lifo rn ia a lleg in g sim ilar c laim s to th e o n e s ra is e d in th e c u rr e n t a c tio n . See G arci a v. Sch w arzenegger ( C as e N o. 0 5 -40 0 9 ). T h e status o f th at ca se is u n clea r. -6- We r e v i e w de novo th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d is m is s a l o f G a rc ia ’s c o m p la in t. P erki ns v. Kan. D ep’ tof C orr ect i ons , 1 6 5 F . 3 d8 0 3 , 8 0 6 ( 1 0 th C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) . We ag ree w ith the d istri ct co u rtthat G arc ia’s claim s ag ains t ( at l ea st) H o o v er, S h a n k s , P e rrya n d G ilb e rtG a rc ia a re b a rr e db yre s ju d ic a ta /c la im p re c lu s io n .

“ R e s ju d ica ta g e n e ra llyap p lies w h e n th e re is a fin a l ju d g m e n t o n th e m e rits w hi ch pr ecludes the part i es orthei rpr i vi es fr om r el i t i gat i ng the is sues tha tw ere deci ded oris s ues thatcould have be en rais ed i n the ear l i eract i on . A c laim is barr ed byr es j udi cat a w hen the pr i oract i on i nvol ved i dent i calcl ai m s and the s ame part i es orthei rpr i vi es . ” Fr ands en v. Wes t i nghous e C or p. , 46 F. 3d 975, 9 7 8 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 1 9 9 5 ) ( c i t a t i o n o mi tt e d ) ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d ) . Al l o f Ga r c i a ’ s c l a i ms a g a in st th e se d e fe n d a n ts w e re p re v io u slylit ig a ted o r sh o u ldh a v e b e e n ra ise din h is p re v io u s la w s u its . E ven as s um i ng the r emai ni ng defe ndant s ar e noti n pr i vyw i th the above defe ndant s , G ar ci a’ s cl ai m s s t i l l fai l . A s w e s t at ed i n G ar ci a I, Ga r c i a ’ s c l a i ms conce rni ng hi s curr entcl as s i fi cat i on and condi t i ons of conf i nementi n the Pel i can B ay St at e Pr i s on ar e not act i onabl e agai ns t thes e N ew M exi co defe ndant s . 439 3 F .3 d a t 1 2 1 8 -1 9 . T o th e e x ten t G a rc ia is c o m p lain in g ab o u t h is p lac e m e n t in a d m in istra tiv e se g re g a tio n o r tra n sfe rs to a n o u t-o f-sta te p riso n w h ile c o n fin e d inG ar ci a’ s m ai n ar gum entagai ns tthe appl i cat i on of r es j udi cat a and the 4 sta tu te o f

lim itatio n s is th a t h e first le a rn e din 2 0 0 4 (in th e d e fe n d a n t’s m o tio n to d ism iss in C a se N o . C V -0 3 -1 1 1 9 ) th a t th e d e fe n d a n ts c laim e dh e w a s p lac e din voluntary admi ni s tr at i ve s egr egat i on aft erhi s s ent ence w as comm ut ed i n 1986. H e c o n ten d s th is c laim is fa lse a n dth is e rro r h a s re su lted in h im b e in g p lac e din in v o lu n ta ry a d m in is tr a tiv e s e g re g a tio n s in c e th a t tim e . A ssu m ing G arc ia’s a ss e rtio n is tru e , the re is n o e v id e n c e G a rc ia’ s s u b se q u e n t p lac e m e n ts in i nvol unt aryadmi ni s tr at i ve s egr egat i on w er e the r es ul tof defendant s ’ err oneous beli ef. M oreove r, no thing preven t ed G arci a, aft er r ecei ving the d efen dan t s’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s , fr om s eeki ng t o amend hi s compl ai nti n C as e N o. C V - 03- 1119 t o r ai s e the i s s ue. -7- the N ew M exi co pr i s on s y s t em, hi s cl ai m s ar e barr ed byN ew M exi co’ s thr ee- y ear s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s fo r c iv il r ig h ts a c tio n s . Id. a t 1 2 1 7 n .3 (c itin g N .M . S TAT . § 37- 1- 8) . L as t l y , G ar ci a’ s as s ert i on he i s the s ubj ectof a c ont i nui ng vi ol at i on by thes e defendant s fai l s becaus e anycont i nui ng vi ol at i on bythem ended w hen he w as tr ans ferr ed t o C al i forni a i n 1994. 4 A F F IR M E D . G a rc ia is re m in d e dh e m u st c o n tin u e m a k in g p a ym e n ts u n til the ent i r e fi l i ng fee i s pai d. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT T err ence L . O ’ B r i en C i r cui tJ udge