Bonilla v. California Supreme Court et al

Filing 4

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)

Download PDF
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

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?