Bonilla v. Nickerson

Filing 5

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/22/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
IN RE STEVEN BONILLA,

Nos. C
C
C
C

5
Plaintiff.
6
/

7

11-5162
11-5163
11-5164
11-5165

CW
CW
CW
CW

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

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; GRANTING
LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS

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

Between June 1 and October 1, 2011, Plaintiff, a state
prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison, filed in this
Court thirty pro se civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Court dismissed all of those actions because none of the
allegations in Plaintiff's complaints stated a claim for relief
under § 1983.

Moreover, in the most recent Order of Dismissal

filed on October 25, 2011, the Court expressly informed Plaintiff
that nine of his actions were being dismissed without leave to
amend for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
and, as a result, Plaintiff will not be permitted to proceed in
forma pauperis in any future civil action he files in this Court,
as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

See In re Steven Bonilla,

Nos. C 11-3180, et seq. CW (PR), Order of Dismissal at 6:23-7:19.
On October 21, 2011, four days prior to the Court's entry of
the above Order of Dismissal, Plaintiff filed the present four
civil rights actions under § 1983.

Thus, because the Court's

ruling that Plaintiff will be subject to the provisions of
§ 1915(g) was not yet final when Plaintiff filed the present
actions, § 1915(g) does not apply herein.

See Silva v. Di

1

Vittorio, No. 08-15620, slip op. 18329, 18343 (9th Cir. Sept. 26,

2

2011) (holding district court's dismissal of case does not count as

3

strike under § 1915(g) until dismissal becomes final by virtue of

4

prisoner's waiver or exhaustion of opportunity to appeal).

5

Nevertheless, these actions are subject to dismissal.

A court

may dismiss a complaint or individual claims when the complaint or

7

claims are duplicative of claims brought in another case.

8

v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding

9

in forma pauperis complaint that merely repeats pending or

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

6

previously litigated claims may be considered abusive and

11

dismissed); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (allowing district courts to

12

dismiss sua sponte prisoner actions that are frivolous).

13

each of Plaintiff's actions raises claims that have been dismissed

14

by this Court previously on the ground that they fail to state a

15

claim for relief under § 1983.

16

See Cato

Here,

Specifically, three of Plaintiff's present actions seek

17

monetary damages and/or injunctive relief from individuals or

18

entities that allegedly presented perjured testimony, provided

19

false evidence or otherwise conspired with the prosecution to

20

obtain Plaintiff's conviction.

21

of California, No. C 11-5162 CW (PR), Bonilla v. Baptist, et al.,

22

No. C 11-5163 CW (PR), and Bonilla v. Nickerson, No. C 11-5164 CW

23

(PR).

24

of California to rule on Plaintiff's pending state habeas petition.

25

See Bonilla v. California Supreme Court, No. C 11-5165 CW (PR).

26

All of these claims previously have been reviewed and dismissed by

27

this Court either because they seek relief that can be pursued only

28

in a habeas corpus action or because they fail to state a claim

See Bonilla v. People of the State

Plaintiff's fourth action seeks to compel the Supreme Court

2

1

upon which relief may be granted.

2

11-2612 et seq. CW (PR), Order of Dismissal filed and judgment

3

entered June 13, 2011; In re Steven Bonilla, Nos. C 11-2808 et seq.

4

CW (PR), Order of Dismissal filed and judgment entered June 16,

5

2011; In re Steven Bonilla, Nos. C 11-3052 et seq. CW (PR), Order

6

of Dismissal filed and judgment entered June 20, 2011; In re Steven

7

Bonilla, Nos. C 11-3180, et seq. CW (PR), Order of Dismissal filed

8

and judgment entered Oct. 25, 2011.

See In re Steven Bonilla, Nos. C

Accordingly, the present four actions are DISMISSED with

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

prejudice because they merely repeat previously dismissed claims.

11

See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2.

12

Plaintiff's lack of funds, his applications to proceed in forma

13

pauperis are GRANTED.

14

Additionally, in view of

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in each of these

15

civil rights actions, terminate all pending motions therein, and

16

close the files.

17

this Order in C 08-0471.

The Clerk of the Court also shall file a copy of

18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
Dated: 11/22/2011
20
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1
2
3

STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA,
Case Number: CV11-05162 CW
CV11-05163 CW
CV11-05164 CW
CV11-05165 CW

4
Plaintiff,
5
v.
6
PEOPLE OF STATE OF CA et al,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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 November 22, 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: November 22, 2011

15

18

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

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4