Bonilla v. Chappell

Filing 4

ORDER DENYING 2 LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DISMISSING ACTION. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/11/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA,

4
5
6

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS; DISMISSING
ACTION

KENNETH R. CHAPPELL, Warden,

7
8

No. C 12-0811 CW (PR)

Defendant.

(Docket no. 2)

___________________________/

9
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks leave to
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this civil rights action.

The

12

Court previously informed Plaintiff that, in accordance with 28

13

U.S.C. § 1915(g), he no longer qualifies to proceed IFP in any

14

civil rights action he files in this Court.

15

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

16

6:23-7:19.

17

Plaintiff may proceed IFP if he "is under imminent danger of

18

serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

19

See In re Steven

The sole exception to this restriction is that

The plain language

of the imminent danger clause in § 1915(g) indicates that "imminent

20
danger" is to be assessed at the time of filing of the complaint.
21
22
23

See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007).
Here, Plaintiff has not alleged facts that show he was in

24

imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed

25

this complaint.

26

prison regulations that limit him to sending legal mail once a week

27

violate his constitutional right of access to the courts.

28

Moreover, the fact that Plaintiff has been sentenced to death does

Rather, in the complaint he alleges only that

1

not, at this time, satisfy the imminent danger requirement.

2

Specifically, he is not in imminent danger of execution because his

3

state habeas petition was pending when he filed this action, and

4

this Court has granted his requests for the appointment of counsel

5

and a stay of execution which he filed in anticipation of his

6
future federal habeas litigation.

See Bonilla v. Ayers, No. C 08-

7
8

0471 CW (PR), Docket no. 3.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's request to proceed IFP is DENIED.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

This action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to bringing the

11

claims herein in a future action in which he pays the full filing

12

fee of $350.00.1

13
14
15
16
17

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the
file.
This Order terminates Docket no. 2.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 4/11/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff is advised that, even if he pays the filing fee,
any action he files will be subject to review by the Court to
determine whether the claims can go forward. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Further, before filing any civil rights action in federal court, he
must exhaust all administrative remedies with respect to each claim
he intends to pursue. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
2