Bonilla v. Washoe County Sheriff's Office et al
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 9/19/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2016)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA,
Case No. 16-cv-05128-VC (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
WASHOE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE,
Plaintiff Steven Wayne Bonilla is a state prisoner who has filed a pro se petition for a
writ of mandamus to compel disclosure by the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office in the State of
Nevada and Washoe County Sheriff’s Sergeant James Lopey of telephone records related to
Bonilla’s state criminal case that they allegedly provided to a federal grand jury investigation.
Bonilla has been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
unless he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his
complaint. 28 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, No. C 11-3180 CW (PR); Bonilla v.
Dawson, No. C 13-0951 CW (PR).
The allegations in this complaint do not show that Bonilla was in imminent danger at the
time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed in forma pauperis. Furthermore, he may not
proceed even if he pays the filing fee because this court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of
mandamus. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Section 1361 provides, “[t]he district courts shall have
original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of
the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” This Court
cannot order the defendants to disclose telephone records because they are not an officer,
employee or agency of the United States. A petition for a writ of mandamus to compel a state
official to take or refrain from some action is frivolous as a matter of law. See Demos v. U.S.
District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991). And, contrary to Bonilla’s argument, the
Court knows of no authority holding, for purposes of mandamus jurisdiction, a state actor
becomes a federal agent by providing information to a federal grand jury.
Furthermore, the relief Plaintiff seeks pertains to his ongoing attempts to invalidate his
state criminal conviction. Therefore, such claims, if raised, must be brought by Bonilla’s counsel
in his pending federal habeas corpus action, Bonilla v. Ayers, No. C 08-0471 YGR (PR).
Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice because amendment would be futile.
The Clerk of the Court shall enter a separate judgment and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 19, 2016
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?