Bonilla v. Horner et al

Filing 4

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 6/29/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2017)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA,

Case No. 17-cv-03335-VC (PR)

Plaintiff,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE

v.
JEFFREY HORNER, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 3

Defendants.

Plaintiff Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state inmate, has filed a pro se complaint entitled,
“Expedited Review Requested; Conspiracy to Commit Murder,” against Alameda County
Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Horner and the California Supreme Court requesting this Court
take action against these defendants. The clerk has docketed this action as a petition for a writ of
mandamus. Bonilla also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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, his motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. 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; 1651. 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.” Id.

Judge Horner and the California Supreme Court are not agencies of the United States.
Furthermore, the relief Plaintiff seeks pertains to his ongoing attempts to invalidate his
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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 29, 2017
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

2