1

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

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

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 v. (ECF No. 27) 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

15 Respondents.

16 17 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition of writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to

. 19 On September 2 and 3, 2025, the Court received Petitioner’s motions to amend under 20 Rule 15(a)(2) and motions to supplement. (ECF Nos. 14, 18.) The Court construed the motions 21 as moving to add disciplinary hearing officer O. Gonzales as a defendant and to supplement the 22 petition to include a claim under

. (ECF No. 22 at 1.) On October 3, 2025, the 23 Court denied Petitioner’s motions. (ECF No. 22.) 24 On October 20, 2025, the Court received Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of its 25 order denying the motions to amend. (ECF No. 27.) Therein, Petitioner “requests that the Court 26 reconsider its order because EDWARDS is a pro se litigant and his request may not have been 27 correctly understood.” (Id.) Petitioner “requests that his habeas corpus which states claims cognizable under § 1983 be recharacterized as a civil rights action because his action is 1 | amendable to such recharacterization” and requests “the Court grant this motion in the event his 2 | habeas corpus action fails.” (ECF No. 27.) 3 “Although Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order, 4 | the rule offers an ‘extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and 5 | conservation of judicial resources.’” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop,

, 890 (9th 6 | Cir. 2000) (quoting 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.30[4] (3d ed. 7 | 2000)). Indeed, “a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 8 | circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 9 | clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 10 | 890 (quoting 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold,

(9th Cir. 1999)). 11 Here, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is based upon Petitioner’s belief that he 12 | states cognizable claims for relief under § 1983. However, there has been no determination by 13 | this Court that Petitioner’s habeas petition states cognizable § 1983 claims. In fact, this Court 14 | previously denied Petitioner’s motion to amend “‘[b]ecause § 1983 provides no cause of action 15 | against federal agents acting under color of federal law,’ Billings v. United States,

, 16 | 801 (9th Cir. 1995), [and] amendment to include a claim under

for a federal 17 | disciplinary hearing officer’s violation of due process would be futile.” (ECF No. 22 at 2.) 18 | Petitioner has not shown that reconsideration is warranted due to newly discovered evidence, 19 | clear error, intervening change in controlling law, or highly unusual circumstances. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration 21 | (ECF No. 27) is DENIED. 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. F- 2 Se 25 | Dated: _ November 26, 2025 " STANLEY A. BOONE 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28