Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 GEZO G. EDWARDS, Case No. 1:25-cv-00701-SAB-HC

11 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO

12 v. DISMISS, DENY PETITIONER’S

MOTIONS TO EXPUNGE INCIDENT

13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., REPORT, DENY PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND

14 Respondents. DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

15

(ECF Nos. 8, 31, 35, 36)

16

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

17 TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT

JUDGE

18

19 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

21 I.

22 BACKGROUND

23 Petitioner is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) at the United States

24 Penitentiary in Atwater, California (“USP Atwater”), serving a life sentence imposed by the

25 United States District Court for the District of Columbia after having been convicted of

26 conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine.

27 (ECF No. 35-1 at 2–3.1)

1 On June 9, 2025, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking

2 expungement of Incident Report 4020485. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner was found to have violated

3 Disciplinary Code 297, Phone Abuse – Disrupt Monitoring, and sanctioned to a loss of 27 days

4 of good conduct time (“GCT”), 180 days of commissary privileges, 180 days of phone

5 privileges, and 180 days of visiting privileges in addition to a $80 monetary fine. (ECF No. 35 at

6 1.) On June 16 and November 17, 2025, Petitioner filed motions to expunge Incident Report

7 3995574. (ECF Nos. 8, 31.) On December 22, 2025, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the

8 petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 35.)

9 To date, no opposition to the motion to dismiss has been filed, and the time for doing so has

10 passed. On January 5, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment, and on January 26,

11 2026, Respondent filed an opposition. (ECF Nos. 36, 37.)

12 II.

13 DISCUSSION

14 A. Motion for Summary Judgment

15 Petitioner moves for summary judgment because Respondent’s response to the petition

16 was due on December 17, 2025, and as of December 28, 2025, Petitioner had not received any

17 response. (ECF No. 36.)

18 On October 15, 2025, the Court granted Respondent’s motion to stay briefing in this

19 matter due to a lapse in appropriations. (ECF No. 24.) On November 17, 2025, the Court lifted

20 the stay and ordered Respondent to file a response to the petition within thirty days. (ECF No.

21 30.) On December 17, 2025, Respondent filed a motion for extension of time to file the response,

22 which the Court granted. (ECF Nos. 33, 34.) On December 22, 2025, Respondent filed a timely

23 motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 35.)

24 As Respondent filed a timely response to the petition, the Court recommends denying

25 Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment.

26 B. Motion to Dismiss

27 As noted by Respondent, (ECF No. 35 at 7), the Ninth Circuit previously affirmed this

1 resulted in the temporary loss of commissary privileges, stating:

2 Habeas corpus jurisdiction exists if a prisoner claims he has been subjected,

without due process, to greater restrictions of liberty, denial of good time credits,

3 or a disciplinary record would affect his eligibility for parole. Bostic v. Carlson,

884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by Nettles v.

4 Grounds, 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). Edwards, who was sentenced to

prison for life in 2014, is ineligible for parole or good time credits. See 18 U.S.C.

5 § 3624(b)(1). A temporary loss of commissary privileges is not a greater

restriction on Edwards’s liberty, and his remaining allegations are insufficient to

6 invoke habeas jurisdiction.

7 Edwards v. Silver, No. 24-7779, 2025 WL 1219022, at *1 (9th Cir. Apr. 28, 2025).

8 Subsequently, Petitioner filed another habeas petition challenging a different disciplinary

9 proceeding, arguing that his claim was properly brought under § 2241 because he is seeking

10 compassionate release, which is distinguishable from parole, and his disciplinary record may

11 impact his release date. Edwards v. Trate, No. 2:24-cv-0887-DMC-P, 2025 WL 2228842, at *1

12 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2025). The magistrate judge found Petitioner’s claim was not cognizable and

13 recommended dismissing the petition, stating:

14 Respondent argues that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because

expunging the incident from Petitioner’s discipline record “would not shorten

15 petitioner’s confinement.” ECF No. 13, pg. 5. Petitioner contends that he is

eligible for habeas relief because of the impact his disciplinary record may have

16 on his motion for compassionate release. See ECF No. 21, pg. 2. This Court finds

that Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable because it does not fall within the core of

17 habeas corpus and therefore, Respondent’s motion to dismiss should be granted.

18 When a state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody – either the fact of

confinement or the duration of confinement – and the relief he seeks is a

19 determination that he is entitled to an earlier or immediate release, such a

challenge is cognizable in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v.

20 Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). If a petitioner’s claim does not lie at “ ‘the

core of habeas corpus,’ ” as established in Preiser, “it may not be brought in

21 habeas corpus.” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 934 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487 (1973)); C.f. Blair v. Martel, 645 F.3d

22 1151, 1157-58 (9th Cir. 2011).

23 Respondent analogizes Petitioner’s claim to the Ninth Circuit case Nettles, where

a prisoner sought § 2254 habeas relief in the form of expungement of a

24 disciplinary record. See ECF No, 13, pg. 6. This Court finds the analysis in

Nettles instructive. Nettles argued that his disciplinary record “delayed his parole

25 hearing and constituted grounds for future denial of parole,” and his claim falls

within habeas because expungement of that record would “accelerate his

26 eligibility for parole.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 927. There, the Court determined that

because parole determination was “in the discretion of the parole board ... [and]

27 success on Nettles’s claims would not even necessarily lead to an earlier parole

hearing ... Nettles’s claims would not necessarily lead to his immediate or earlier

1 Nettles’s claim “does not fall within ‘the core of habeas corpus,’ ” and Nettles

was therefore ineligible for habeas relief. See id.

2

Here, Petitioner asserts that he is seeking compassionate release under 18 U.S.

3 Code § 3582, which requires consideration of “the history and characteristics of

the defendant.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a)(1). Petitioner contends that consideration is

4 “inseparably tied to a prisoner’s disciplinary record” and, in support of that

contention, Petitioner provides a string of citations to cases where courts consider

5 disciplinary records when determining eligibility for compassionate release. ECF

No. 21, pg. 3.

6

The Court disagrees with Petitioner and finds compassionate release to be

7 analogous to parole eligibility, as addressed by the Ninth Circuit in Nettles. As the

Ninth Circuit found with parole, compassionate release is discretionary,

8 expungement of a disciplinary record “would not even necessarily result” in

compassionate release, and therefore, Petitioner’s “claims would not necessarily

9 lead to his immediate or earlier release from confinement.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at

935. While Petitioner is correct that a disciplinary record may be considered when

10 determining whether compassionate release is appropriate, the existence of

Petitioner’s disciplinary record would not dispositively impact Petitioner’s

11 compassionate release motion and, in turn, his release date. Petitioner may still be

eligible for compassionate release with his disciplinary record, as nothing in the

12 statute requires that prisoners have a clear record to be eligible. Further, even if

Petitioner’s record were expunged, a clear disciplinary record is not decisive for

13 compassionate release. As such, Petitioner’s claim “does not fall within ‘the core

of habeas corpus,’ ” and is therefore not cognizable. Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935.

14 Thus, the undersigned will recommend that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be

granted.

15

16 Edwards, 2025 WL 2228842, at *2–3. The district judge adopted the findings and

17 recommendations in full. Edwards v. Trate, No. 2:24-cv-0887-DJC-DMC-P, 2025 WL 2644136,

18 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2025).

19 The Court adopts the reasoning of Edwards v. Silver, 2025 WL 1219022, and Edwards v.

20 Trate, 2025 WL 2228842, to find that Petitioner’s claims seeking expungement of Incident

21 Reports 4020485 and 3995574 are not cognizable in federal habeas corpus.

22 III.

23 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER

24 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:

25 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 35) be GRANTED;

26 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED;

27 3. Petitioner’s motions to expunge (ECF Nos. 8, 31) be DENIED;

4. Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 36) be DENIED.

] Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign this action to a District

2 | Judge.

3 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District

4 | Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local

5 | Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within

6 | THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file

7 | written objections with the Court, limited to fifteen (15) pages in length, including any

8 | exhibits. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

9 | Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days

10 | after service of the objections. The assigned United States District Court Judge will then review

11 | the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that

12 | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

13 | Court’s order. Wilkerson _v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter

14 | Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

15

16 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le

17 | Dated: _February 24, 2026 _ OES

STANLEY A. BOONE

18 United States Magistrate Judge

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28