Gezo Edwards v. B. M. Trate

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California addresses a federal prisoner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition seeking expungement of a prison disciplinary record. The magistrate judge recommends denying the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, granting the respondent’s motion to dismiss, and declining to recharacterize the petition as a civil rights action. The court concludes that expungement would not necessarily result in earlier or immediate release because compassionate release is discretionary and therefore the claim does not fall within the core of habeas corpus.

Holdings

1. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(C) and Local Rule 135, service was complete when respondent mailed the motion to dismiss to petitioner's last known address; petitioner's motion for summary judgment should therefore be denied.
2. A claim seeking expungement of a prison disciplinary record is not cognizable in habeas when success would not necessarily result in an earlier or immediate release from confinement. The possible effect of expungement on a discretionary compassionate-release motion did not bring the claim within the core of habeas corpus.
3. The action should not be recharacterized as a civil-rights action because petitioner named the warden rather than the individuals involved in the disciplinary hearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether service of respondent's motion to dismiss was complete when the motion was mailed to petitioner's last known address, notwithstanding petitioner's assertion that he did not receive it.
2. Whether a federal prisoner's request to expunge a disciplinary record, based on its possible effect on a discretionary compassionate-release motion, is cognizable in a § 2241 habeas action.
3. Whether the habeas action should be recharacterized as a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Disposition

other