Bonilla v. Ayers
ORDER re 6 Denying Request for Vaughn Indexing. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 04/30/2010. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2010)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Petitioner is an inmate under sentence of death at San Quentin State Prison. He was convicted of first degree murder in Alameda County Superior Court on January 20, 1995. Although his state habeas case is currently being litigated, he has filed the above-captioned case as a "protective petition" in this court pursuant to Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005). Petitioner also filed a pro se action (C-02-636 MHP) in federal court on February 6, 2002. After his complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, he filed an amended complaint in 2002 and a second amended complaint in 2005. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, Bonilla sought to compel the government to disclose a number of documents. Pursuant to court orders in 2007, defendant United States produced a number of documents. At that time, Bonilla was represented by counsel David Nickerson. In November 2007, the parties stipulated that the case should be dismissed, agreeing that the United States had fully complied with the court's orders. In an order v. VINCENT CULLEN, Acting Warden of California State Prison at San Quentin, Respondent. / STEVEN BONILLA, Petitioner, No. C-08-0471 CW ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR VAUGHN INDEXING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
dated November 26, 2007, Judge Patel dismissed Bonilla's action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court stated in its order that "[a]bsent showing of good cause, no further requests for relief will be entertained in this matter." In case C-02-636 MHP, Bonilla subsequently filed a pro se motion for a Vaughn indexing of the documents produced by the government. See Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973). According to Bonilla, attorney Nickerson refused to represent him in this request. Judge Patel denied Bonilla's motion for a Vaughn indexing, pursuant to an order filed January 13, 2010. Petitioner has now filed a request for a Vaughn indexing in this case. The request concerns the documents at issue in C-02-636 MHP. Petitioner's request, having already been considered and denied by the district judge assigned to the case involving the documents, is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 4/30/2010 _______________________________ Claudia Wilken United States District Judge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STEVEN W. BONILLA, Plaintiff, v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case Number: C-08-0471 CW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
VINCENT CULLEN, et al., Defendants. /
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on April 30, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.
California Appellate Project Federal Court Docketing 101 Second Street Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94105 Habeas Corpus Resource Center 303 Second Street, Suite 400 South San Francisco, CA 94107 Steven W. Bonilla J-48500 CSP-San Quentin CA State Prison at San Quentin San Quentin, CA 94974 Dated: April 30, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk
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?