Bonilla v. Nickerson 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-03337-VC (PR)

Plaintiff,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE

v.
DAVID NICKERSON, et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state inmate, has filed a pro se complaint entitled,
“Expedited Review Requested; Conspiracy to Commit Murder,” against David Nickerson,
Plaintiff’s attorney in his state criminal case, the California Attorney General’s Office, Deputy
Attorney General Bruce Ortega 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 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 over the state entities and their employees. 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.
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