Garcia v. Bureau of Prisons

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MIGUEL CANTU GARCIA, §
#12138-280, §
§
Petitioner, §
§
V. § No. 3:25-cv-1549-B-BN
§
BUREAU OF PRISONS, §
§
Respondent. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Miguel Cantu Garcia, a federal prisoner, submitted a pro se petition for writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Dkt. No. 3. Senior United States District
Judge Jane J. Boyle referred Garcia’s petition to the undersigned United States
magistrate judge for pretrial management under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing
order of reference.
In his petition, Garcia seeks the same relief as in another case filed in this
Court, Garcia v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 3:25-cv-1399-N-BW. That case was dismissed
without prejudice because, under Fifth Circuit precedent, a pleading seeking release
to home confinement rather than accelerated release should properly be considered
as a civil rights suit rather than a habeas petition. See Garcia v. BOP, No. 3:25-cv-
1399-N-BW, 2025 WL 1886749 (N.D. Tex. June 6, 2025), rec. accepted, 2025 WL
1885644 (N.D. Tex. July 7, 2025).
When this case was filed as a habeas petition, the undersigned issued an order
and notice of deficiency (the “NOD”) providing Garcia the opportunity to amend his
Case 3:25-cv-01549-B-BN Document 5 Filed 01/02/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

- 2 -
claims into a civil rights action by July 30, 2025. See Dkt. No. 4. The NOD also ordered
Garcia to pay the filing fee or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Garcia
paid only the $5 filing fee for a habeas action before the deadline and did not amend
his claims into a civil rights action.
And the undersigned enters these findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendation that the Court should dismiss the habeas petition without prejudice
to seeking relief in a civil rights action.
Discussion
Garcia’s sole claim in his petition is that “[t]he Bureau of Prisons is not
following the directives issued by Director William K. Marshall III issued on
05/28/[2]025.” Dkt. No. 3 at 6. The referenced memo relates to expansion of home
confinement under the First Step Act and Second Chance Act. See id. at 9-10. Garcia
alleges that his “conditional transition to community date” was March 1, 2025. Id. at
2. According to the BOP’s website, Garcia’s scheduled release date is November 16,
2027. See Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/
(last visited Dec. 31, 2025).
“[A] habeas petition ‘is the proper vehicle to seek release from custody,’ while
a civil rights suit . . . is the ‘proper vehicle to attack unconstitutional conditions of
confinement and prison procedures.’” Maxwell v. Thomas, 133 F.4th 453, 454 (5th
Cir. 2025) (quoting Melot v. Bergami, 970 F.3d 596, 599 (5th Cir. 2020)). The Fifth
Circuit has adopted “‘[t]he “bright-line rule” that if a favorable determination of the
prisoner’s claim would not automatically entitle him to accelerated release, then the
Case 3:25-cv-01549-B-BN Document 5 Filed 01/02/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

- 3 -
proper vehicle is a civil rights suit.’” Id. (quoting Melot, 970 F.3d at 599).
Release to home confinement does not change the length of a prisoner’s
sentence, but only changes his place of confinement, the designation of which is solely
within the BOP’s statutory authority. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b); United States v.
Chaney, 823 F. App’x 278, 279 (5th Cir. 2020) (“The Bureau of Prisons has the sole
authority to designate a prisoner’s place of incarceration.”). Because Garcia’s
requested relief would not automatically entitle him to accelerated release from his
sentence, Section 2241 is not the proper vehicle for his claim. See Maxwell, 133 F.4th
at 454; Blackwell v. Warden, FCI Yazoo, No. 3:24-CV-832-KHJ-MTP, 2025 WL
1370821, at *1 (N.D. Miss. May 12, 2025). Instead, the relief he seeks is properly
brought in a civil rights action. See id.
Because the Court provided the opportunity for Garcia to amend his claims
into a civil rights complaint but instead he paid the lower filing fee for a habeas
petition, the undersigned does not construe Garcia’s petition as a new civil rights
complaint. So the Court should dismiss the petition without prejudice to Garcia’s
seeking relief in a separate civil rights action.
Recommendation
The Court should dismiss the petition without prejudice to Garcia’s seeking
relief in a separate civil rights action.
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on
all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these
findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections
Case 3:25-cv-01549-B-BN Document 5 Filed 01/02/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

- 4 -
within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV.
P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or
recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and
specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation
where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by
reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure
to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the
factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or
adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v.
United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
DATED: January 2, 2026
_________________________________________
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-01549-B-BN Document 5 Filed 01/02/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>