Bonilla v. Ayers

Filing 135

ORDER LIFTING STAY AND DENYING PETITIONERS REQUEST TO PROCEED WITHOUT COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/29/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

OAKLAND DIVISION

8
9

STEVEN W. BONILLA,

Case Number C 08-471 CW
DEATH PENALTY CASE

10
Petitioner,
11
v.
12
13

MICHAEL MARTEL, Acting Warden of
San Quentin State Prison,

14

ORDER LIFTING STAY AND
DENYING PETITIONER’S
REQUEST TO PROCEED WITHOUT
COUNSEL

Respondent.
15
16
17
18

Petitioner Steven Bonilla has been sentenced to death by the

19

Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda.

20

January 22, 2008, while his state habeas case was still being

21

litigated, Bonilla filed a request for appointment of counsel for

22

his future federal habeas litigation in this Court, under case

23

number C-08-471 CW.

24

Court granted his request for appointment of counsel and referred

25

this action to the Northern District’s Selection Board for the

26

recommendation of qualified counsel to represent Petitioner in

27

these proceedings.

28

On

Pursuant to Habeas Local Rule 2254-25, this

On May 2, 2012, this Court issued an order staying all
proceedings in this matter until appointment of counsel to

1

represent Petitioner, and on May 23, 2012, this Court denied

2

Petitioner’s request to represent himself in these proceedings.

3

On July 25, 2012, this court issued an order appointing the

4

Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Nevada

5

to represent Petitioner.

6

hereby LIFTED.

Accordingly, the stay in this matter is

7

Despite the appointment of counsel, Petitioner has continued

8

to file numerous pro se pleadings, including a motion to withdraw

9

his request for court-appointed counsel.

For the reasons set

10

forth in this Court’s order of May 23, 2012, Petitioner’s motion

11

is DENIED.

12

post-conviction proceedings.

13

California, 528 U.S. 152, 163 (2000); Tamalini v. Stewart, 249 F.

14

3d 895, 901-902 (9th Cir. 2001).

15

discretion, finds that self-representation would not be in

16

Petitioner’s best interests.

17

unwise, and considering the complexity of capital habeas

18

litigation, would likely be detrimental to Petitioner.

19

The right to self-representation does not extend to
Martinez v. Court of Appeal of

This Court, exercising its

Self-representation is often

The remainder of Petitioner’s pending pro se requests and

20

motions are DENIED.

21

pending motions.

The Clerk of Court shall terminate all

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26
27

DATED:

8/29/2012
________________

__________________________________
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

28

2