Bonilla v. Supreme Court of California

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; TERMINATING ALL PENDING MOTIONS; NOTIFYING PLAINTIFF OF APPLICATION OF 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) TO FUTURE ACTIONS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/25/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

IN RE STEVEN BONILLA,

4
Plaintiff.
5
/
6
7
8
9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; TERMINATING
ALL PENDING MOTIONS; NOTIFYING
PLAINTIFF OF APPLICATION OF 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g) TO FUTURE
ACTIONS

Nos. C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

11-3180
11-3181
11-3206
11-3398
11-3441
11-3631
11-4334
11-4335
11-4534
11-4731
11-4737

CW
CW
CW
CW
CW
CW
CW
CW
CW
CW
CW

(PR)
(PR)
(PR)
(PR)
(PR)
(PR)
(PR)
(PR)
(PR)
(PR)
(PR)

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
BACKGROUND
11
Plaintiff Steven Bonilla has been sentenced to death by the
12
Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda.

He is

13
incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison.

Although his state

14
habeas case currently is being litigated, he filed a request for
15
appointment of counsel for his future federal habeas litigation in
16
this Court.

See Bonilla v. Ayers, No. C 08-0471 CW (PR).

Pursuant

17
to Habeas Local Rule 2254-25, this Court granted his request for
18
appointment of counsel and referred the matter to the Northern
19
District’s Selection Board for the recommendation of qualified
20
counsel to represent Plaintiff in his federal habeas proceedings.
21
Additionally, pursuant to Habeas Local Rule 2254-24(a), the Court
22
granted Plaintiff's concurrent request for a stay of execution.
23
(Docket no. 3.)
24
Although Plaintiff's state habeas case is pending, Plaintiff
25
has filed numerous pro se requests and motions in C 08-0471.

All

26
of the requests and motions have been denied by this Court or
27
withdrawn by Plaintiff.
28

In particular, on February 16, 2011, the

1

Court issued an Order telling Plaintiff that no further filings

2

regarding CR 88-259 MISC AJZ (Grand Jury proceedings) would be

3

accepted by this Court.

4

dismissed with prejudice In re: Steven Wayne Bonilla, No. C 11-0441

5

CW (PR), a pro se complaint filed by Plaintiff regarding CR 88-259

6

MISC AJZ.

7

pro se motions filed by Plaintiff in C 08-0471.

8

Court wrote:

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

(Id.)

(Docket no. 34.)

Additionally, the Court

On March 29, 2011, the Court denied several more
In doing so, the

As this Court has stated multiple times, Petitioner’s
state habeas case is still pending in the state court.
The Court reiterates to Petitioner that challenges to his
state trial conviction must be reviewed by the state
courts before being considered by the federal court.
Until that time, Petitioner’s various claims in his pro
se pleadings are not ripe for this Court to consider.
(Docket no. 54 at 2:16-22.)

14

Between June 1 and June 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed in this

15

Court nineteen pro se civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

16

The Court dismissed all of those actions for the reason that none

17

of the allegations in Plaintiff's complaints stated a claim for

18

relief under § 1983.

19

Plaintiff that although challenges to the lawfulness of confinement

20

or its duration can be addressed only by way of habeas corpus,

21

Here, in an apparent attempt to circumvent this Court's
prior admonition to Plaintiff that no further filings
regarding CR 88–259 MISC AJZ would be accepted by the
Court and that additional unripe pro se motions in C 080471 would be denied, Plaintiff has filed the instant
civil rights complaints in which he seeks access to
certain discovery, witness testimony, declarations and
other information that he claims would render his death
penalty conviction invalid, including information
regarding CR 88-259 MISC AJZ. Because all of Plaintiff's
civil rights complaints seek relief that must be pursued
by way of habeas corpus, all of the instant civil rights
actions are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to
Plaintiff's bringing his claims in a federal habeas
petition. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Specifically, the Court explained to

2

1
2

583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff is reminded,
however, that he must heed the Court's prior admonitions
before filing additional pro se matters in C 08-0471.

3

In re Steven Bonilla, Nos. C 11-2612 et seq. CW (PR), Order of

4

Dismissal at 2:28-3:15; see also In re Steven Bonilla, Nos.

5

C 11-2808 et seq. CW (PR), Order of Dismissal; In re Steven

6

Bonilla, Nos. C 11-3052 et seq. CW (PR), Order of Dismissal.

7

Now pending before the Court are eleven new pro se civil

8

rights actions filed by Plaintiff.

9

below, the actions are DISMISSED.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

For the reasons discussed

DISCUSSION
With the exception of one complaint filed against an attorney

12

Plaintiff hired in a civil proceeding, all of Plaintiff's newly-

13

filed civil rights actions bear some connection to his state

14

criminal proceedings.

15

however, as Plaintiff previously attempted to do in his prior civil

16

rights actions, most of the instant complaints seek monetary

17

damages and/or injunctive relief from individuals or entities that

18

allegedly presented perjured testimony, provided false evidence or

19

otherwise conspired with the prosecution to obtain Plaintiff's

20

conviction.

21

return of property seized by FBI that was used at trial); Bonilla

22

v. Keyes, No. C 11-4534 CW (PR) (suing private individual who

23

testified at Plaintiff's trial and allegedly committed perjury);

24

Bonilla v. Rand Investigation, No. C 11-4731 CW (PR) (suing private

25

investigation company that obtained personal phone records later

26

used against Plaintiff at trial); Bonilla v. Rule, No. C 11-4737 CW

27

(PR) (suing private author for damages for libel in relation to

28

Plaintiff's conviction).

Rather than seeking habeas corpus relief,

See Bonilla v. FBI, No. C 11-3631 CW (PR) (seeking

3

1

Additionally, three of Plaintiff's complaints seek damages

2

from private actors who allegedly unlawfully took possession of

3

Plaintiff's business and its proceeds while conspiring to convict

4

Plaintiff.

5

Bonilla v. Pacific Growers, No. C 11-4334 CW (PR); Bonilla v.

6

Baptist, et al., No. C 11-4335 CW (PR).

7

Plaintiff's complaints seeks monetary damages from a private

8

attorney hired by Plaintiff in a civil proceeding.

9

Lively, No. C 11-3180 CW (PR).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

See Bonilla v. Baptist, et al., No. C 11-3398 CW (PR);

And, as noted, one of

See Bonilla v.

The above eight cases are subject to dismissal for the

11

following reasons.

12

monetary damages from private individuals under § 1983.

13

v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980); Ouzts v. Maryland Nat'l Ins.

14

Co., 505 F.2d 547, 550 (9th Cir. 1974).

15

attorneys.

16

1981).

17

state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

As an initial matter, Plaintiff cannot seek
See Gomez

This includes private

See Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1345 (9th Cir.

Accordingly, all such claims are DISMISSED for failure to

18

Further, Plaintiff cannot pursue any claim for damages or

19

injunctive relief that, if successful, necessarily would call into

20

question the validity of his conviction or confinement.

21

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), holds that in order to state a claim

22

for damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or term of

23

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose

24

unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a

25

plaintiff asserting a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must prove that

26

the conviction or sentence has been reversed or declared invalid.

27

Id. at 486-87.

28

demonstrate the invalidity of the confinement or its duration, the

Heck v.

If success in the § 1983 lawsuit would necessarily

4

1

§ 1983 lawsuit is barred, irrespective of whether the plaintiff

2

seeks monetary damages or equitable relief.

3

544 U.S. 74, 81 (2005).

4

Wilkinson v. Dotson,

Here, Plaintiff's complaints seeking damages and/or injunctive

5

relief from those who allegedly conspired to prosecute and convict

6

him would, if successful, necessarily call into question the

7

validity of Plaintiff's conviction.

8

that raise such claims are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim

9

upon which relief may be granted.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Accordingly, the complaints

See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487.

Another three of Plaintiff's complaints raise claims

11

concerning actions taken by the state courts.

12

Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief from a state court

13

judge for alleged erroneous evidentiary rulings in Plaintiff's

14

criminal proceedings.

15

(PR).

16

liability for damages under § 1983 for judicial acts.

17

v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-55 (1967).

18

injunctive relief regarding evidentiary matters at Plaintiff's

19

trial must be brought by way of habeas corpus.

20

complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which

21

relief may be granted.

In one case,

See Bonilla v. Goodman, No. C 11-3260 CW

A state judge, however, is absolutely immune from civil
See Pierson

Further, any claim for

Accordingly, this

22

In Plaintiff's remaining two cases, he challenges the

23

constitutionality of the California Supreme Court's policy

24

requiring that an attorney be appointed to represent capital

25

defendants in all automatic appeals.

26

of Cal., No. C 11-3181 CW (PR); Bonilla v. Supreme Court of Cal., C

27

11-3441 CW (PR).

28

such policy he has been forced to proceed with an attorney who is

See Bonilla v. Supreme Court

In particular, Plaintiff claims that because of

5

1

providing ineffective assistance of counsel.

2

comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with

3

ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or

4

declaratory relief absent extraordinary circumstances.

5

v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971).

6

required when: (1) state proceedings, judicial in nature, are

7

pending, (2) the state proceedings involve important state

8

interests, and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate

9

opportunity to raise the constitutional issue.

Under principles of

See Younger

Younger abstention is

See Middlesex

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432

11

(1982).

12

proceedings, requiring that state appellate review of a state court

13

judgment be exhausted before federal court intervention is

14

permitted.

15

(1975).

16

The rationale of Younger applies throughout appellate

See Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 607-11

Here, the Court declines, under Younger, to intervene in

17

Plaintiff's ongoing appellate proceedings before the California

18

Supreme Court.

19

Plaintiff's challenges to the California Supreme Court's policy and

20

these two cases are DISMISSED without prejudice.

21

Accordingly, the Court will abstain from addressing

CONCLUSION

22

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

23

1.

The following nine actions are DISMISSED without leave to

24

amend for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

25

granted: Bonilla v. Lively, C 11-3180; Bonilla v. Goodman, C 11-

26

3260; Bonilla v. Baptist, et al., C 11-3398; Bonilla v. FBI, C 11-

27

3631; Bonilla v. Pacific Growers, C 11-4334; Bonilla v. Baptist, et

28

al., C 11-4335; Bonilla v. Keyes, C 11-4534; Bonilla v. Rand
6

1
2

Investigation, C 11-4731; Bonilla v. Rule, C 11-4737 CW.
2.

The following two actions are DISMISSED without prejudice

3

on abstention grounds: Bonilla v. Supreme Court of Cal., C 11-3181;

4

Bonilla v. Supreme Court of Cal., C 11-3441.

5

3.

In light of the above dismissals for failure to state a

6

claim upon which relief may be granted, Plaintiff is advised that

7

he will not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in any

8

future civil action he files in this Court, as set forth in 28

9

U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Specifically, under that section, a prisoner may

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

not bring a civil action IFP "if the prisoner has, on 3 or more

11

prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility,

12

brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that

13

was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or

14

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the

15

prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury."

16

U.S.C. § 1915(g).

17

28

Consequently, Plaintiff will be required to pay the full

18

$350.00 filing fee at the time of filing any future civil action

19

unless he meets the "imminent danger" exception.

20

4.

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in each of

21

the above civil rights actions, terminate all pending motions

22

therein, and close the files.

23

file a copy of this Order in C 08-0471.

The Clerk of the Court also shall

24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
Dated: 10/25/2011
26
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1
2
3
STEVEN W BONILLA,

Case Number: CV11-03180 CW

4
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

5
v.
6
DAVID LIVELY et al,
7
Defendant.
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

/

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 October 25, 2011, 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.

13
14

16

Steven Wayne Bonilla J-48500
San Quentin State Prison
San Quentin, CA 94964

17

Dated: October 25, 2011

15

18

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8