Bonilla v. Ayers
Filing
155
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DISMISSING ACTIONS; TERMINATING ALL PENDING MOTIONS (Re Case No. C 14-1990 CW and C 14-2091 CW). Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/2/2014. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2014)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
STEVEN BONILLA, et al.,
5
Plaintiffs,
6
v.
7
8
JEFFREY BEARD, Director of
California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation,
Defendant.
9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
Case No.: 14-1990 CW (PR)
STEVEN BONILLA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
11
v.
12
13
JEFFREY BEARD, Director of
California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation,
14
Case No.: 14-2091 CW (PR)
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DISMISSING
ACTIONS; TERMINATING ALL
PENDING MOTIONS
Defendant.
15
16
Plaintiff Steven Bonilla, a state prisoner incarcerted at San
17
Quentin State Prison (SQSP) and a frequent litigator in this
18
Court, has filed these two pro se civil actions on behalf of
19
himself and other inmates at SQSP.
20
Bonilla filed documents stating that he wants to dismiss the
21
claims of all other Plaintiffs and to proceed only on behalf of
22
himself.
23
individuals listed as Plaintiffs filed letters explaining that
24
Bonilla used their names without their permission and requesting
25
that their claims be dismissed from the action.
26
appearing, except for Bonilla, the Court dismisses the claims of
27
all individuals named as Plaintiffs in these actions.
28
of the Court shall not charge these individuals a filing fee.
After he filed both actions,
In case number C 14-2091 CW (PR), many of the
For good cause
The Clerk
1
Before the Court reviews the complaints, it addresses a
2
preliminary matter.
3
entitled, “Peremptory Challenges,” in which he seeks to recuse the
4
undersigned judge on the grounds of alleged prejudice against him.
5
Because these documents do not satisfy the requirements for
6
recusal of a judge listed in 28 U.S.C. § 144 or 28 U.S.C. § 455,
7
the requests for recusal are denied.
8
9
In each case, Bonilla files a document
In case number C 14-2091 CW (PR), Bonilla has filed a motion
to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
In case number C 14-1990 CW
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
(PR), Bonilla has not filed a motion to proceed IFP, although the
11
Clerk has sent him a notice that he must do so or his complaint
12
will be dismissed.
13
of mandate in which Plaintiff Bonilla challenges operational
14
procedure (OP) 608, newly implemented by the California Department
15
of Corrections and Rehabilitations (CDCR) for Grade A condemned
16
inmates at SQSP.
17
must be dismissed.
18
Both of these actions are petitions for writs
For the following reasons, both of these actions
On October 25, 2011, the Court informed Bonilla that, in
19
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he no longer qualifies to
20
proceed IFP in any civil action he files in this Court.
21
Steven Bonilla, Nos. C 11-3180, et seq. CW (PR), Order of Dismissal
22
at 6:23-7:19.
23
Bonilla may proceed IFP if he “is under imminent danger of serious
24
physical injury.”
25
imminent danger clause in § 1915(g) indicates that “imminent
26
danger” is to be assessed at the time of filing of the complaint.
27
Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007).
28
See In re
The sole exception to this restriction is that
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The plain language of the
In these actions, Plaintiff Bonilla has not alleged facts
2
1
that show he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at
2
the time he filed them.
3
challenges OP 608 on the ground that it requires condemned
4
inmates, such as himself, to be subject to new housing
5
requirements, which he fails to specify.
6
Plaintiff Bonilla challenges OP 608 on the ground that it requires
7
Grade A condemned inmates to be escorted by at least one
8
correctional officer and to be in restraints while under escort.
9
Neither of Plaintiff Bonilla’s grounds for challenging OP 608
In C 14-1990 CW (PR), Plaintiff Bonilla
In C 14-2041 CW (PR),
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
places him in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
11
Therefore, these actions must be dismissed under 28 U.S.C.
12
§ 1915(g).
13
These actions also must be dismissed because this Court lacks
14
authority to issue a writ of mandamus to direct state officials in
15
the performance of their duties; a petition for a writ of mandamus
16
compelling a state official to take or refrain from taking some
17
action is frivolous as a matter of law.
18
Dist. Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991).
19
Demos v. United States
CONCLUSION
20
Based on the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:
21
1. With the exception of Plaintiff Bonilla, the claims of all
22
named Plaintiffs are dismissed from these actions and the Clerk of
23
the Court shall not charge them a filing fee.
24
2. Plaintiff Bonilla’s requests for recusal are denied.
25
3. Plaintiff Bonilla’s request to proceed IFP in case number
26
C 14-2014 CW (PR) is DENIED and both actions are DISMISSED.
27
action is without legal merit.
28
4. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending
3
Each
1
motions, enter judgment and close the files.
2
5. The Clerk shall file a copy of this Order in C 08-0471 CW.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
Dated: 6/2/2014
________________________
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?