Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00308/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00308-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Honesto308dwlta

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER HONESTO, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-308 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. The petition is not cognizable under

§2254 because the claims do not allege any federal constitutional violation. Accordingly,

the Court will DISMISS the instant petition with leave to amend within thirty days of the

date of this order. 

BACKGROUND

A Santa Clara Superior Court jury convicted Petitioner of second degree murder. 

Petitioner was sentenced to fifteen years-to-life in state prison. Petitioner challenges the

California Board of Prison terms’ denial of parole. According to the petition, Petitioner

filed a state habeas petition in the state superior court, which was granted in 2004. The

**E-filed 10/5/06**

Case 5:06-cv-00308-JF Document 2 Filed 10/05/06 Page 1 of 5
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

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Honesto308dwlta

state appellate court reversed the superior court’s decision in 2005. The state supreme

court denied petitioner’s habeas petition in 2005. The instant petition was filed on

January 17, 2006. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person

in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28

U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to

show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that

the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner alleges: (1) violated plea

agreement; (2) invalid plea; and (3) no-parole policy. These claims are not cognizable in

a federal habeas action because a writ of habeas corpus is available under § 2254(a) “only

on the basis of some transgression of federal law binding on the state courts.” Middleton

v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 119

(1982)), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). It is unavailable for violations of state law or

for alleged error in the interpretation or application of state law. See Estelle v. McGuire,

502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991); Engle, 456 U.S. at 119. Petitioner has not specified any

violation of federal law in his claims. 

The Court notes that Petitioner must exhaust his claims, including the federal basis

for each claim, in the state supreme court prior to raising the claims in his federal habeas

petition. Federal habeas petitioners are first required to exhaust state judicial remedies,

either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state

court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they

seek to raise in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-

Case 5:06-cv-00308-JF Document 2 Filed 10/05/06 Page 2 of 5
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

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Honesto308dwlta

16 (1982); Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981); McNeeley v. Arave, 842 F.2d

230, 231 (9th Cir. 1988). The state’s highest court must be given an opportunity to rule

on the claims even if review is discretionary. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838,

845 (1999) (petitioner must invoke “one complete round of the State’s established

appellate review process”). Therefore, Petitioner cannot present claims to this Court

which he has not first raised in the highest state court available, the Supreme Court of

California, usually by direct appeal or by way of a state habeas petition.

Accordingly, the court will DISMISS the instant petition and grant Petitioner leave

to amend to correct these deficiencies. 

CONCLUSION

1. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is hereby DISMISSED with leave 

to amend, as indicated above, within thirty days from the date this order is filed. The

amended petition must include the caption and civil case number used in this order 

(C 06-308 JF (PR)) and the words “AMENDED PETITION” on the first page. Because

an amended petition completely replaces the original petition, Petitioner must include in it

all the claims he wishes to present. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.),

cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 321 (1992). Petitioner must file all supporting documents he

wishes to include with the amended petition. Petitioner must identify the specific claims

he is challenging from the underlying state court proceedings. The amended petition shall

be on the Court’s form for habeas petitions, a copy of which is enclosed with

Petitioner’s copy of this order. Petitioner must explain how he has exhausted his

claims, that is, what he did to present them first to the highest state court available, which

is the Supreme Court of California. Failure to filed an amended petition within the

deadline will result in the dismissal of the instant petition without prejudice. 

 2. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep 

the Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk

headed “Notice of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a

timely fashion or ask for an extension of time to do so. 

Case 5:06-cv-00308-JF Document 2 Filed 10/05/06 Page 3 of 5
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

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Honesto308dwlta

Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

10/4/06

Case 5:06-cv-00308-JF Document 2 Filed 10/05/06 Page 4 of 5
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

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Honesto308dwlta

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Peter Honesto

D-55459

CSP -SATF V

P.O. Box 5248

900 Quebec

Corcoran, CA 93212

Case 5:06-cv-00308-JF Document 2 Filed 10/05/06 Page 5 of 5