Honicky 333893 v. Thornell

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Mark C Honicky, No. CV-24-00714-PHX-KML 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Ryan Thornell, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 On March 31, 2025, the court adopted the Report and Recommendation and denied petitioner Mark C. Honicky’s petition for writ of habeas corpus because it was barred by the statute of limitations. (Doc. 42.) The court denied a certificate of appealability because the untimeliness was plain and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable. (Doc.

19 42 at 3.)

20 On April 8, 2025, Honicky filed a “Motion Pursuant to Rule 59 to Alter or Amend Judgment.” (Doc. 44.) That motion reargues Honicky’s position on the timeliness of his petition. The court considered those arguments in adopting the Report and Recommendation and Honicky’s motion does not provide any basis to reach a different conclusion. That is, Honicky does not present highly unusual circumstance, newly discovered evidence, or any reason to conclude the court committed clear error. 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear || error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.”).

2 Honicky’s motion argues the court “did not rule on the granting or denial for a || certificate of appealability.” (Doc. 44 at 11.) That is incorrect: the court’s previous order 4|| denied a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 42 at 3.) To the extent Honicky requests a || certificate of appealability for the present order, that too is denied because jurists of reason 6|| would not find it debatable whether the denial of the Rule 59(e) motion was correct. See 7\| United States v. Lanphear, No. 22-35204, 2023 WL 4145437, at *1 n.1 (9th Cir. June 23, || 2023) (requiring certificate of appealability in Rule 59(e) context).

9 IT IS ORDERED the Motion Pursuant to Rule 59(e) (Doc. 44) is DENIED.

10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a certificate of appealability is DENIED because |} jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether the denial of the Motion Pursuant to Rule 59(e) was correct.

13 Dated this 10th day of April, 2025.

15 f “/ , a n / 4 / : 16 □□ LA We Cet Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 17 United States District Judge _2-