Bonilla v. Superior Court of Alameda County

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; TERMINATING ALL PENDING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/24/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

IN RE STEVEN BONILLA,

4
Plaintiff.
5
/
6

Nos. C
C
C
C
C

11-6306
11-6307
12-0026
12-0027
12-0206

CW
CW
CW
CW
CW

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

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; TERMINATING
ALL PENDING MOTIONS

7
8

BACKGROUND
9
Plaintiff Steven Bonilla has been sentenced to death by the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda.

He is

11
incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison.

Although his state

12
habeas case currently is being litigated, he filed a request for
13
appointment of counsel for his future federal habeas litigation in
14
this Court.

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

Pursuant

15
to Habeas Local Rule 2254-25, this Court granted his request for
16
appointment of counsel and referred the matter to the Northern
17
District's Selection Board for the recommendation of qualified
18
counsel to represent Plaintiff in his federal habeas proceedings.
19
Additionally, pursuant to Habeas Local Rule 2254-24(a), the Court
20
granted Plaintiff's concurrent request for a stay of execution.
21
Although Plaintiff's state habeas case is pending before the
22
California Supreme Court, Plaintiff has filed numerous pro se
23
requests and motions in C 08-0471.

All of the requests and motions

24
have been denied by this Court or withdrawn by Plaintiff.
25
Additionally, between June 1 and October 31, 2011, Plaintiff
26
filed in this Court thirty-four pro se civil rights actions under
27
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
28

The Court dismissed all of those actions for the

1

reason that the allegations in the complaints do not state a claim

2

for relief under § 1983, either because Plaintiff seeks relief that

3

can be pursued only in a habeas corpus action or because his

4

allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

5

Additionally, several actions were dismissed as duplicative of

6

actions previously reviewed and dismissed by the Court.

7

Now pending before the Court are five new pro se civil rights

8

actions filed by Plaintiff.

9

actions are DISMISSED.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

For the reasons discussed below, the

DISCUSSION
A.

False Arrest/False Imprisonment
In two actions, Plaintiff claims he was falsely arrested and

13

is falsely imprisoned.

14

Attorney's Office, No. C 11-6307 CW (PR); Bonilla v. Superior Court

15

of Alameda County, No. C 11-6306 CW (PR).

16

seeks release from custody.

17

of action are "independent" from a petition for a writ of habeas

18

corpus, because they challenge the lack of probable cause to arrest

19

him, not the validity of his conviction.

20

See Bonilla v. Alameda County District

Based on such claims, he

Plaintiff maintains that these causes

Plaintiff's contention is without merit.

As the Court has

21

explained previously to Plaintiff in several Orders, any claim by

22

Plaintiff that he is entitled to "immediate or speedier release"

23

from confinement may be asserted only in a petition for a writ of

24

habeas corpus.

25

(2011)(internal citation and quotation omitted).

26

above two actions are DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff's

27

bringing his claims in a federal habeas petition.

28

City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995).

See Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1293

2

Accordingly, the

See Trimble v.

1

Further, any claim for damages based on allegations of false

2

arrest and false imprisonment can be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

3

only after Plaintiff's conviction has been found invalid.

4

Smithart v. Towery, 79 F.3d 951, 952 (9th Cir. 1996). (Heck v.

5

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), bars plaintiff's claims that

6

defendants lacked probable cause to arrest him and brought

7

unfounded criminal charges against him).

8

extent Plaintiff seeks damages based on his alleged false arrest

9

and imprisonment, the above two actions are DISMISSED for failure

Accordingly, to the

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

See

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

11

B.

12

Delay In State Habeas Proceedings
In Bonilla v. California Supreme Court, No. C 12-0026 CW (PR),

13

Plaintiff claims the California Supreme Court is violating his

14

constitutional rights by refusing to issue an opinion in his death

15

penalty appeal.

16

is being denied his constitutional right to pursue damages claims

17

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against those who are responsible for his

18

wrongful conviction.

19

He maintains that, as a result of such delay, he

The Court construes this action as a request for mandamus

20

relief, that is, a request that this Court direct the state court

21

to rule on Plaintiff's pending appeal.

22

cannot be granted.

23

jurisdiction to issue mandamus to direct state courts in the

24

performance of their duties; thus, an action brought to compel a

25

state court to take or refrain from some action is frivolous as a

26

matter of law.

27

1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991); see Dunlap v. Corbin, 532 F. Supp.

28

183, 187 (D. Ariz. 1981) (federal court cannot direct state court

So construed, the request

Federal district courts are without

Demos v. United States District Court, 925 F.2d

3

1

to provide speedy trial).

2

Further, Plaintiff's claim that he is being denied his right

3

to pursue claims for damages related to his wrongful conviction is

4

without merit.

5

Orders, Heck, supra, holds that no cause of action for damages

6

accrues under § 1983 until Plaintiff's conviction has been

7

overturned.

8

freestanding constitutional or statutory right for Plaintiff to

9

pursue, prior to reversal of his conviction, any claim for damages

As the Court has explained to Plaintiff in previous

In other words, Heck makes clear that there exists no

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

or injunctive relief that, if successful, necessarily would call

11

into question the validity of his conviction or confinement.

12

Moreover, the statute of limitations will not start to run on any

13

such claims until they have accrued.

14

Accordingly, the above action fails to state a claim for

15

relief and is DISMISSED.

16

C.

17

Prosecutorial Misconduct
In Bonilla v. Cullen, No. C 12-0027 CW (PR), Plaintiff seeks

18

to have his conviction vacated on grounds of prosecutorial

19

misconduct.

20

reviewed and addressed by the Court, sounds in habeas corpus and is

21

not cognizable in a civil rights action.

22

action is DISMISSED.

23

D.

24

This claim, which is duplicative of claims previously

Accordingly, the above

California Supreme Court Policy
In Bonilla v. California Supreme Court, No. C 12-0206 CW (PR),

25

Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of the California

26

Supreme Court's policy requiring that an attorney be appointed to

27

represent capital defendants in all automatic appeals.

28

reviewed and dismissed this same claim on abstention grounds, under
4

This Court

1

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), in two of Plaintiff's

2

previous actions.

3

3181 CW (PR); Bonilla v. Supreme Court of Cal., C 11-3441 CW (PR).

4

Accordingly, the above action is DISMISSED as duplicative.

See Bonilla v. Supreme Court of Cal., No. C 11-

5

CONCLUSION

6

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

7

The following five actions are DISMISSED without prejudice and
without leave to amend for failure to state a claim upon which

9

relief may be granted: Bonilla v. Superior Court of Alameda County,

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

C 11-6306; Bonilla v. Alameda County District Attorney's Office, C

11

11-6307; Bonilla v. California Supreme Court, C 12-0026; Bonilla v.

12

Cullen, C 12-0027; Bonilla v. California Supreme Court, C 12-0206.

13
14

Leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the above actions is
DENIED.1

15

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

16

above actions, terminate all pending motions therein, and close the

17

files.

18

in C 08-0471.

The Clerk of the Court also shall file a copy of this Order

19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
Dated: 1/24/2012
21
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
1

25
26
27
28

The Court recently informed Plaintiff that, in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he no longer qualifies to proceed in forma
pauperis in any civil rights action he files in this Court. See In
re Steven Bonilla, Nos. C 11-3180, et seq. CW (PR), Order of Dismissal
at 6:23-7:19. In the instant matter, however, the Court will not
provide Plaintiff with the option of paying, in full, the $350.00
filing fee for each of the five actions addressed in the present
Order, because the actions are without legal merit.
5