Bonilla v. Ontiveros et al
Filing
3
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,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 16-cv-05129-VC (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE
RANDY ONTIVEROS, et al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Steven Wayne Bonilla is a state prisoner who has filed a pro se petition for a
writ of mandamus to compel disclosure by Randy Ontiveros, Francie Koehler and Rand
Investigation of telephone records related to Bonilla’s state criminal case that they allegedly
provided to the Federal Bureau of 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. And, contrary to Bonilla’s argument, the Court knows
of no authority holding, for purposes of mandamus jurisdiction, that a private individual or
company becomes a federal agent by providing information to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
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.
Dated:
September 19, 2016
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge
2
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?