Garza-Guerra v. United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIGUEL ANGEL GARZA-
GUERRA,
Plaintiff
V.
UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-740
(JUDGE MANNION)
MEMORANDUM
Pending 	before the 	court 	is 	plaintiff Miguel 	Angel 	Garza-Guerra's
motion for reconsideration of the court's February 18, 2025, order, (Doc. 9),
dismissing his amended complaint, (Doc. 10), with prejudice. (Doc. 11 ). For
the reasons stated herein , Plaintiff's motion will be DENIED.
I. 	BACKGROUND
a. 	Plaintiff's conviction and sentence
On April 23, 2015, Plaintiff pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute
and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, 	in violation of 21
U.S.C. §846, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas. See (Docs. 1 ,T6 , 10 ,T17); Order Adopting United States Magistrate
Judge's 	Rep. 	at 	1, 	United 	States 	v. 	Garza-Guerra, 	No . 	4: 13-cr-14-8
(E.D.Tex .), ECF No . 461. On December 30 , 2015, Plaintiff was sentenced to
Case 3:24-cv-00740-MEM-SH Document 12 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 13

one-hundred-thirty-five (135) months' imprisonment, to be followed by a year
of supervised release. See (Docs. 1 ,I6, 10 ,I17); J. at 2-3, United States v.
Garza-Guerra , No . 4:13-cr-14-8 (E.D. Tex.), ECF No. 596. Although Plaintiff
appealed from his sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit, he later voluntarily dismissed the appeal. See Mandate, United
States v. Garza-Guerra , No . 4:13-cr-14-8 (E.D. Tex.), ECF No . 596.
b. Plaintiff's §2241 petition
On March 14 , 2023, Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. §2241 . See Pet. , Garza-Guerra v. Thompson , No. 3:23-cv-
445 (M.D. Pa .), ECF No. 1. In his Section 2241 petition, Plaintiff sought "an
order from the Court directing his immediate early transfer to supervised
re lease from FCC Allenwood ... based on his calculation of the credits he
has earned under the [FSA], which .. . would have caused his release since
September 19 , 2022 ." Id. at 1. He claimed to have earned a year's worth of
FSA time credits, and he generally asserted that the BOP had "arbitrarily,
capriciously, and willfully refused to apply earned time credits [("ETCs" )] to
prisoners 	who 	have 	voluntary 	[Immigration 	and 	Customs 	Enforcement
(" ICE " )] detainers because of their nationality ." Id.
In denying the petition, the court explained that federal inmates are
ineligible for FSA ETCs if they are "the subject of a final order of removal
- 2 -
Case 3:24-cv-00740-MEM-SH Document 12 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 13

under any provision of the immigration laws. " Mem. at 3, Garza-Guerra v.
Thompson , 	No. 	3:23-cv-445 	(M .D.Pa. ), 	ECF 	No. 	8 	(citing 	18 	U.S .C.
§3632(d)(4 )(E)). Because the Government "presented evidence that [Plaintiff
was] subject to a deportation order," the court concluded that the 	BOP
"properly determined that [he was] not eligible for application of FSA time
credits." Id. at 4 (citations omitted).
Following the denial of his habeas petition, Plaintiff filed a motion for
reconsideration in which he contended, inter a/ia , that the court's denial was
in error because the Government had failed to produce a copy of his actual
final order of removal and , as such, this was "prima facie evidence that no
such order exist[ed]. " Mot. for Recons. at 1, Garza-Guerra v. Thompson, No.
3:23-cv-445 (M.D. Pa .), ECF No. 10. He also requested that if a final order
of removal exists, the court should compel the Government to produce it
because it "i s the only valid evidence that could justify the denial of [ETCs]
for a prisone r." Id. at 2.
The 	court then 	issued 	an 	order 	on 	June 	26, 2023, 	directing 	the
Government to provide the court with Plaintiff's correct alien number and a
copy of his final order of removal. See Order, Garza-Guerra v. Thompson,
No . 3:23-cv-445 (M.D. Pa . ), ECF No . 14. The Government timely responded
to the co u rt 's order by providing Plaintiff's alien number and a copy of his
- 3 -
Case 3:24-cv-00740-MEM-SH Document 12 Filed 03/02/26 Page 3 of 13

final order of removal on June 28, 2023. See Garza-Guerra v. 	Thompson,
No . 3:23-cv-445 (M . D. Pa.), ECF No . 15.
After reviewing the parties' submissions, this court entered an order on
August 21, 2023, denying Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. See Order,
Garza-Guerra 	v. 	Thompson , 	No. 	3:23-cv-445 	(M . D. 	Pa .), ECF 	No. 	17 .
Plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals,
which the Third Circuit dismissed on December 19 , 2023, due to Plaintiff's
failure to pay the filing fee as directed. See Garza-Guerra v. Thompson, No.
3:23-cv-445 (M.D. Pa.), ECF No . 22 . Although Plaintiff sought to have the
Third Circuit reinstate/reopen his appeal, the Third Circuit declined to do so
via an order entered on February 7, 2024. 	See Garza-Guerra v. 	Warden
Allen wood FCI, No. 23-2581 (3d Cir.), ECF Nos. 8, 13. Plaintiff then filed a
motion to 	have the Third 	Circuit reconsider the denial 	of his motion to
reinstate/reopen his appeal, which the Third Circuit denied on April 19, 2024.
See Garza-Guerra v. Warden Allenwood FCI, No. 23-251 (3d Cir. ), ECF No .
16 .
c. 	Proceedings in this case
On May 2, 2024, Plaintiff commenced the instant action by filing his
complaint. (Doc. 1 ). In the complaint, Plaintiff asserted false imprisonment
and 	negligence claims against Defendant United States of America (the
- 4 -
Case 3:24-cv-00740-MEM-SH Document 12 Filed 03/02/26 Page 4 of 13

"Government") under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") based on his
general allegation that he was unlawfully detained at FCI Allenwood Low
beyond his maximum sentence. (Doc. 1 at 1-4). On May 20, 2024, Plaintiff
filed a motion to amend his complaint, accompanied by a proposed amended
complaint. (Docs. 6, 6-1 ).
On February 18, 2025, the court issued a memorandum , (Doc. 8), and
order, (Doc. 9), dismissing Plaintiff's amended complaint, 	(Doc. 10), with
prejudice. The court, after screening Plaintiff's original complaint, determined
that Plaintiff's FTCA claims were barred by collateral estoppel due to his prior
§2241 	petition , 	and 	that 	his 	proposed 	amended 	complaint 	should 	be
dismissed with prejudice "because further amendment would be futile." (Doc.
8 at 24 ). The court then "direct[ed] the Clerk of Court to docket [Plaintiff's]
proposed amended complaint as his amended complaint . .. [and] dismiss
with prejudice the amended complaint." Id. at 24; see a/so (Doc. 10).
On March 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed the present motion for reconsideration
of the court's order dismissing his amended complaint with prejudice. In his
motion, Plaintiff argues that: "the Court's decision rest on (1) an erroneous
application of collateral estoppel , (2) a misinterpretation of statutory and
regulatory requirements governing final orders of removal, and (3) manifest
injustice 	resulting 	from 	the 	Court's 	apparent 	reliance 	on 	fabricated 	or
- 5 -
Case 3:24-cv-00740-MEM-SH Document 12 Filed 03/02/26 Page 5 of 13

backdated 	evidence 	presented 	by 	the 	government 	to 	justify 	Plaintiff's
unlawful detention." (Doc. 11 at 1). The matter is now ripe for disposition.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A motion for reconsideration is governed by Rule 59(e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, which gives a party 28 days to move to alter or
amend a judgment. Fed. 	R. 	Civ. P. 59(e). "The purpose of a motion for
reconsideration is 'to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence. "' 	Lazaridis v. 	Wehmer, 	591 	F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir.
2010) (quoting Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176
F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)). Indeed, "a proper Rule 59(e) motion . . . must
rely on one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2)
the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error of law
or prevent manifest injustice ." Lazaridis, 591 F.3d at 669 (citing N. River Ins.
Co . v. 	CIGNA Reinsurance 	Co. , 52 	F.3d 	1194, 1218 (3d 	Cir. 1995)). "A
motion for reconsideration is not to be used as a means to reargue matters
already argued and disposed of ... [n]or is it to be used to put forth additional
arguments which could have been made but which the party neglected to
make before judgment. " Waye v. First Citizen's Nat. Bank, 846 F.Supp. 310,
314 (M . D. Pa . 1994) (citation omitted). Reconsideration of a judgment is an
- 6 -
Case 3:24-cv-00740-MEM-SH Document 12 Filed 03/02/26 Page 6 of 13

extraordinary remedy, and the court grants such motions sparingly. D'Angio
v. Borough of Nescopeck, 56 F.Supp.2d 502, 504 (M.D. Pa. 1999).
Ill. 	DISCUSSION
Plaintiff's arguments can be summarized as follows: (1) the final order
of removal that the court relied on in its decision denying his §2241 petition
was 	invalid and fabricated, 	which 	renders the issue of whether 	he was
unlawfully detained beyond his proper release date inconclusively litigated,
and 	his 	§2241 	proceedings 	incapable 	of 	barring 	his 	FTCA 	claims 	via
collateral estoppel; (2) the prior habeas case and this case deal with distinct
issues-FSA 	credits 	versus 	FTCA 	claims-and, 	therefore, 	collateral
estoppel 	does 	not apply; 	and 	(3) 	Plaintiff was 	not given 	a full 	and fair
opportunity to litigate the issues he presents because the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals dismissed and refused to reopen the prior habeas case. Each of
these arguments are discussed below.
a) Plaintiff's 	argument 	with 	respect 	to 	the 	final 	order 	of
removal's invalidity
Plaintiff argues that: the court relied on an immigration detainer letter
purporting the existence of an 	order of removal, 	rather than 	an 	order of
removal itself, in denying his §2241 	petition; that the final order of removal
that the court relied upon in denying his motion for reconsideration of that
decision 	was 	invalid 	and 	fabricated; 	that the 	court 	did 	not 	address 	its
- 7 -
Case 3:24-cv-00740-MEM-SH Document 12 Filed 03/02/26 Page 7 of 13

invalidity; and , that, therefore, the court's denial of his prior §2241 	petition
cannot serve as a basis for collateral estoppel with respect to his present
claims.
While the court did rely on an immigration detainer letter stating that a
final order of removal existed in making its May 16 , 2023, decision denying
Plaintiff's §2241 petition, the court then ordered the Government to provide
the final 	order of removal 	itself in 	order to 	rule 	on 	Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration. 	The 	Government 	provided 	the 	court with 	that 	order 	of
removal , (Doc. 15-1 ), and the court relied upon it to deny the motion for
reconsideration. (Doc. 17 at 3-4) ("Given this current information, the Court
finds that its Memorandum and Order of May 16, 2023 are not troubled by
manifest 	errors 	of 	law, 	as 	Respondent 	has 	presented 	evidence 	that
Petitioner is subject to a final order of deportation"). Critically, however, the
court also 	noted 	its 	lack of jurisdiction 	"to 	review 	removal 	orders, hear
challenges to removal orders, or stay removal orders ." Id. at 4, fn . 1.
Indeed , the court again noted that the issue of whether the final order
of removal was valid is not an issue that it has jurisdiction to resolve in its
February 18 , 2025, memorandum in this case. 	See (Doc. 9 at 22, fn . 3)
("Garza-Guerra appears to challenge the validity of the final order of removal ,
even insofar as he contends that the BOP relied on an invalid final order
- 8 -
Case 3:24-cv-00740-MEM-SH Document 12 Filed 03/02/26 Page 8 of 13

because it was allegedly entered without him receiving due process. To the
extent that Garza-Guerra is attempting to challenge the validity of his final
order of removal , this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to consider it"
(citing 8 U.S.C. §1252(9))).
Finally, "[a] motion for reconsideration is not to be used as a means to
reargue matters already argued and disposed of .. . [n]or is it to be used to
put forth additional arguments which could have been made but which the
party neglected to make before judgment." Waye , 846 F.Supp. at 314. These
arguments do exactly that. They challenge the court's judgment in Plaintiff's
habeas case, rather than this case. Reconsideration of the court's judgment
in that case is outside the scope of this present motion.
b) Plaintiff's argument with 	respect to 	the 	inapplicability of
collateral estoppel
Plaintiff argues that the 	issues 	in 	this 	case 	and 	his 	pnor habeas
proceedings are distinct, as his habeas petition focused on FSA ETCs, and
this case deals with FTCA claims. The court disagrees.
Whi le it is true that Plaintiff's habeas proceedings dealt primarily with
unlawful detention because of an alleged failure by the BOP to apply FSA
ETCs, and that this case deals primarily with unlawful detention due to the
alleged lack of a va l id final order of removal , both cases ask the court to
settle 	the 	central 	issue 	of whether 	his 	detainment 	was 	unlawful 	after
- 9 -
Case 3:24-cv-00740-MEM-SH Document 12 Filed 03/02/26 Page 9 of 13

September 22, 2022 , i.e. , after the date on which Plaintiff believes he should
have been released 	due to his earning 	FSA ETCs. 	Plaintiff attempts to
reframe the issue as "whether a valid final order of removal existed as of
September 22 , 2022 ," or "whether Plaintiff was wrongfully detained due to
reliance on fabricated and backdated evidence. " (Doc. 11 at 5) .
However, Plaintiff's reframing does not present a new issue for the
court to decide. In reality , he simply asks the court to reassess the nature of
the documentation that it relied upon in determining that FSA ETCs did not
apply 	to 	him 	when 	it 	denied 	his 	§2241 	petition 	and 	his 	motion 	for
recons ideration in 2023. He hopes, it seems, that the court will now view the
evidence favorably to him and effectively reverse its prior decision , thereby
allowing the FSA ETCs to apply to him . In other words , he seeks to use the
present lawsuit as a means to overcome the court's decision in his prior
lawsuit, which is exactly what the doctrine of collateral estoppel is designed
to preven t.
Furthermore, the court addressed Plaintiff's concerns in its February
18 , 2025, order:
Under federal common law, "[a] finding 	of issue preclusion
[(also known as collateral estoppel)] is appropriate when (1)
"the issue sought to be precluded is the same as that involved
in the prior action ; (2) the issue was actually litigated; (3) it was
- 10 -
Case 3:24-cv-00740-MEM-SH Document 12 Filed 03/02/26 Page 10 of 13

determined 	by 	a 	final 	and 	valid 	judgment; 	and 	(4) 	the
determination was essential to the prior judgment" . . . In this
case , the first two elements of the collateral estoppel analysis
are satisfied 	because Garza-Guerra previously litigated the
issue of whether he should have been released on September
22 , 2022 because FSA ETCs should have been applied to his
sentence, and he seeks to relitigate that issue in the present
case. Although Garza-Guerra previously presented this issue
through a Section 2241 	habeas petition and not the FTCA,
issue preclusion prevents successive litigation of an issue that
was resolved in a prior case "even if the issue recurs in the
context of a different claim. " ... The third element is also met
because the Court denied the Section 2241 	petition 	on the
merits and denied his motion for reconsideration . Finally, the
fourth element is met because a determination of whether the
BOP properly applied FSA ETCs to Garza-Guerra's sentence
was essential to the judgment denying his habeas petition.
Accordingly, Garza-Guerra's FTCA claims are barred by the
doctrine of collateral estoppel.
Id. at 20-22 (internal citations omitted).
Finally, as stated above, the issue of whether the final order of removal
was valid is not an issue that this court has jurisdiction to resolve.
- 11 -
Case 3:24-cv-00740-MEM-SH Document 12 Filed 03/02/26 Page 11 of 13

c) Plaintiff's argument with respect to not being afforded a full
and fair opportunity to litigate the issues
Plaintiff argues that he "was not afforded a full and fair opportunity to
litigate the critical issues" because the "Court of Appeals dismissed 	and
refused 	to 	reopen the prior habeas case 	... 	leaving 	Plaintiff without a
meaningful opportunity to challenge the BOP's fabricated evidence." (Doc.
11 at 10).
A review of the record in the habeas proceedings shows that after this
court's denial of Plaintiff's habeas petition, 	and 	denial of his motion for
reconsideration , Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals, which the Third Circuit dismissed on December 19, 2023, due to
Plaintiff's failure to 	pay the filing 	fee 	as 	directed . 	See 	Garza-Guerra 	v.
Thompson , No. 	3:23-cv-445 	(M.D. 	Pa.), 	ECF 	No. 	22. 	Although 	Plaintiff
sought to have the Third Circuit reinstate/reopen his appeal, the Third Circuit
declined to do so via an order entered on February 7, 2024. 	See Garza-
Guerra v. Warden Allen wood FCI, No. 23-2581 (3d Cir.), ECF Nos. 8, 	13.
Plaintiff then filed a motion to have the Third Circuit reconsider the denial of
his motion to reinstate/reopen his appeal , which the Third Circuit denied on
Apr il 19, 2024. See Garza-Guerra v. Warden Allenwood FCI, No. 23-251 (3d
Cir .), ECF No. 16.
- 12 -
Case 3:24-cv-00740-MEM-SH Document 12 Filed 03/02/26 Page 12 of 13

Plaintiff was provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues.
Although the Third Circuit's decisions were unfavorable to Plaintiff, they did
not render the proceedings incomplete or unfair.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration will be
DENIED. An appropriate order shall issue.
DATE: 	s/2/2624-740-02
YE. MANNION
United S ates District Judge
- 13 -
Case 3:24-cv-00740-MEM-SH Document 12 Filed 03/02/26 Page 13 of 13