Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03350/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03350-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1 

 NO. C 09‐03350 RS

ORDER 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

*E-Filed 02/04/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

GRACE M. HONESTO, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA and ARNOLD 

A. SCHWARTZENEGGER, 

 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 09-03350 RS 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS, WITHOUT LEAVE TO 

AMEND

I. INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff Grace Honesto, appearing in pro se, is the mother of Peter Honesto, who is 

presently incarcerated by the State of California. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a “statement 

of facts” which the Court has previously deemed to be the operative complaint, and which includes 

many pages of “exhibits.” Some of the allegations plaintiff makes in the “statement of facts” are 

less than clear, but her basic allegations appear to be that: (1) her son’s constitutional rights have 

been violated by his continued incarceration, and (2) her son has been physically assaulted in prison 

and permanently injured as a result of his own attempts to vindicate his rights. 

On a motion to dismiss, the Court presumes plaintiff’s alleged facts to be true. Moreover, 

where a plaintiff appears pro se, the Court reads the complaint liberally, and will indulge in every 

possible inference in plaintiff’s favor. Under these standards, the Court nevertheless must find that 

Case 5:09-cv-03350-RS Document 28 Filed 02/04/10 Page 1 of 5
2 

 NO. C 09‐03350 RS

ORDER 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

plantiff has failed to state a claim, and that this action must be dismissed. The claims plaintiff is 

making belong to her son, not to her, and she may not raise them on his behalf, absent circumstances 

not present here. The motion was heard by the Court on February 3, 2010. Plaintiff made no 

appearance. 

II. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff alleges that beginning in 1997, her son Peter began filing petitions in the California 

state courts alleging that state and prison officials were violating his rights by keeping him 

incarcerated. Peter was then physically assaulted in prison, resulting in a permanent disability. 

Although plaintiff does not state how the assault occurred or who committed it, she implies that it 

happened, or was allowed to happen, at least in part in retaliation for the petitions Peter had filed. 

Plaintiff recounts in some detail the history of Peter’s state court habeas proceedings and 

discloses that he has also filed one or more habeas petitions in this Court. Plaintiff alleges that 

various state court judges handled the habeas proceedings and/or the underlying conviction 

improperly. Plaintiff asserts that Peter was effectively denied his right to counsel. 

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to protect Peter from retaliation. She also seeks declaratory 

relief that Peter, and other inmates similarly situated, have been unlawfully sentenced based on facts 

not proven to a jury. Plaintiff further asks the Court to declare unconstitutional certain provisions of 

the California Penal Code and the California Code of Regulations. Finally, plaintiff seeks $100 

million in compensatory damages. 

As noted in a prior order, liberally read the complaint appears intended to name as 

defendants a large number of individuals, including judges and prosecutors who almost certainly 

would be immune from suit. The Court previously advised plaintiff, however, that the only 

defendants of record are the State of California and its governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and that 

she needed to amend her complaint if she wished to proceed against any other defendants. 

The present motion to dismiss is brought by the California Attorney General’s office on 

behalf of Governor Schwarzenneger, and two other state officials who were served with the 

Case 5:09-cv-03350-RS Document 28 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 5
3 

 NO. C 09‐03350 RS

ORDER 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

complaint, Attorney General Jerry Brown, and state Treasurer Bill Lockyer.1 Because the Court has 

previously ruled that they are not defendants, Brown and Lockyer technically have no standing to 

appear in this action and their inclusion in the motion is superfluous. 

Finally, the complaint includes some references to the “Honesto estate” as if it is intended to 

be an additional plaintiff. As there is no indication any such estate legally exists or what plaintiff 

believes it to be, those references do not alter the analysis that the complaint fails to state a claim. 

III. DISCUSSION 

Absent circumstances not present here, a “plaintiff generally must assert [her] own legal 

rights and interests, and cannot rest [her] claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third 

parties.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975). Here, it is only plaintiff’s son (and similarly 

situated inmates), who have allegedly been injured. A private citizen “lacks a judicially cognizable 

interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution of another.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 

619 (1973). 

Moreover, it is clear that Peter is capable of, and in fact has been, pursuing his own claims. 

Presently pending in this court is Honesto v. Adams, C 06-0308 JF in which Peter has made all of 

the same basic allegations plaintiff has set out here. Indeed, even in this action, plaintiff has 

requested that her son be permitted to “attend the settlement conference and all proceedings to 

resolve the dispute, as Peter Honesto is well versed in the law, facts, and claims of the pending civil 

action . . . .” 

Plaintiff’s opposition to this motion contains argument directed at attempting to show why 

her son’s claims are viable, but nothing which would show why she has standing to bring those 

claims. The motion to dismiss expressly referred to the jus tertii exception to prudential standing 

requirements, but plaintiff’s opposition made no effort to argue that the circumstances of this case 

fall within that exception or that there is any other basis on which she may act as a representative for 

 

1

 The state of California itself has not entered an appearance because the Attorney General’s office 

asserts it has not been properly served. 

Case 5:09-cv-03350-RS Document 28 Filed 02/04/10 Page 3 of 5
4 

 NO. C 09‐03350 RS

ORDER 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

her son. In short, this is not plaintiff’s lawsuit to pursue. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss must 

be granted. 

In light of the facts that (1) plaintiff has offered no response addressing her lack of standing 

nor suggested any basis on which she could amend, (2) plaintiff did not appear when the motion was 

heard, and (3) the fact that Peter is presently pursuing the same claims on his own behalf, it is 

manifestly apparent that any amendment would be futile. Accordingly, no leave to amend will be 

granted. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 The motion to dismiss is granted. The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 02/04/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

Case 5:09-cv-03350-RS Document 28 Filed 02/04/10 Page 4 of 5
5 

 NO. C 09‐03350 RS

ORDER 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A HARD COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO: 

Grace M Honesto 

11010 Orleans River Court 

Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 

DATED: 02/04/2010 

 /s/ Chambers Staff . 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Richard Seeborg 

Case 5:09-cv-03350-RS Document 28 Filed 02/04/10 Page 5 of 5