Bonilla et al v. Pacific Growers et al

Filing 5

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DISMISSING ACTIONS; TERMINATING ALL PENDING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/18/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA,
Plaintiff,
v.
KATHY BONILLA,
Defendant.
___________________________/

No. C 12-2852 CW (PR)

STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, DBA
SUNSTATE WHOLESALE TROPICAL
NURSERY,
Plaintiff,
v.
PACIFIC GROWERS, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________/

No. C 12-2863 CW (PR)
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS; DISMISSING
ACTIONS; TERMINATING ALL
PENDING MOTIONS

13
14

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks leave to

15

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these two civil actions.

16

Court previously informed Plaintiff that, in accordance with 28

17

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

18

civil action he files in this Court.

The

See In re Steven Bonilla,

19
Nos. C 11-3180, et seq. CW (PR), Order of Dismissal at 6:23-7:19.
20
21

The sole exception to this restriction is that Plaintiff may

22

proceed IFP if he “is under imminent danger of serious physical

23

injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

24

danger clause in § 1915(g) indicates that “imminent danger” is to

25

be assessed at the time of filing of the complaint.

26

Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007).

27
28

The plain language of the imminent

See Andrews v.

Here, Plaintiff has not alleged facts that show he was in
imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed

1

these complaints.

2

complains that his sister has denied him an accounting of the

3

proceeds in the living trust established by his father before he

4

died, and in Bonilla v. Pacific Growers, C 12-2863, he seeks

5

Rather, in Bonilla v. Bonilla, C 12-2852, he

monetary damages from the participants of an alleged civil

6
conspiracy that led to his conviction and incarceration.
7
8

Moreover, the fact that Plaintiff has been sentenced to death
does not, at this time, satisfy the imminent danger requirement.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

Specifically, he is not in imminent danger of execution because

11

this Court has entered a stay of execution in his pending federal

12

habeas corpus action.

13

Docket no. 3.

14
15
16

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

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP is DENIED and
these actions are hereby DISMISSED.1
The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions,

17
enter judgment and close the files.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
DATED: 6/18/2012
20

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
1

26
27
28

Plaintiff is not precluded from bringing his claims in future
actions in which he pays the full filing fee of $350.00. However,
even if he does so, such actions will be subject to review by the
Court to determine whether the claims can go forward. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A.
2