Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00308/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00308-5/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 Granting Motion to Dismiss

P:\PRO-SE\OLD JUDGES\SJ.JF\HC.06\Honesto308_deny-coa3.wpd 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER HONESTO,

Petitioner,

 v.

D. G. ADAMS, Warden

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-00308 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

On March 7, 2011, the Court granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss this pro se

petition for a writ of habeas corpus and entered judgment. (Docket No. 37.) On July 14,

2014, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen the case which the Court denied because there

was no further relief available to Petitioner in this matter since the Ninth Circuit had

denied Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) and the U.S.

Supreme Court denied a motion for rehearing. (Docket No. 63.) The Court also advised

Petitioner that a second or successive petition containing previously raised or new claims

may not be filed in the district court unless he first obtains from the United States Court

of Appeals an order authorizing the district court to consider the petition. (Id., citing 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).) 

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which has remanded the

matter for the limited purpose of granting or denying a COA on the district court’s denial

Case 5:06-cv-00308-JF Document 70 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 3
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 Denying COA

P:\PRO-SE\OLD JUDGES\SJ.JF\HC.06\Honesto308_deny-coa3.wpd 2

of Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion. (See Docket No. 69.) The COA is DENIED because

Petitioner has not shown “that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong” or that “jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

The Clerk shall forward this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit, from which Petitioner may also seek a certificate of appealability. See

United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-00308-JF Document 70 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER HONESTO,

Plaintiff,

v.

DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:06-cv-00308-JF 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on 1/15/2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said 

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing 

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle 

located in the Clerk's office.

Peter Honesto ID: D-55459

CA State Prison-Chino Facility A, AH-157-UP

P.O. Box 368

Chino, CA 91708 

Dated: 1/15/2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable EDWARD J. DAVILA

Case 5:06-cv-00308-JF Document 70 Filed 01/15/16 Page 3 of 3