Bonilla v. Superior Court of Alameda County et al

Filing 5

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DISMISSING ACTIONS; TERMINATING ALL PENDING MOTIONS; DIRECTING CLERK TO FILE COPY OF ORDER IN C 08-0471 CW. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/8/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA,

5
6
7
8
9

No. C 12-4894 CW (PR)

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION,
Defendants.
___________________________/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA,
Plaintiff,

12
13

No. C 12-5090 CW (PR)

v.

14

SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA
COUNTY, JEFFREY W. HORNER,

15

Defendants.
___________________________/

16
17

STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA,
Plaintiff,

18
19
20
21
22

No. C 12-5091 CW (PR)

v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION,
Defendants.
___________________________/

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS; DISMISSING
ACTIONS; TERMINATING ALL
PENDING MOTIONS;
DIRECTING CLERK TO FILE
COPY OF ORDER IN C 080471 CW

23
24

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

25

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

26

Court previously informed Plaintiff that, in accordance with 28

27

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

28

civil action he files in this Court.

The

See In re Steven Bonilla,

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

1

The sole exception to this restriction is that Plaintiff may

2

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

3

injury."

4

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

5

be assessed at the time of filing of the complaint.

6

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

7

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

The plain language of the imminent

See Andrews v.

Here, Plaintiff has not alleged facts that show he was in

8

imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed

9

these complaints.

Rather, in cases C 12-4894 and C 12-5091,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff complains that the Department of Justice and the Federal

11

Bureau of Investigation have denied his FOIA request for documents

12

pertinent to challenging the validity of his criminal conviction.

13

He seeks a ruling from this Court requiring that he be provided

14

with the documents.

15

who presided over his criminal trial wrongly denied his request for

16

exculpatory evidence from the prosecution.

17

this Court that the judge's ruling denied him a fair trial.

18

In case C 12-5090, he complains that the judge

He seeks a ruling from

The fact that Plaintiff has been sentenced to death does not,

19

at this time, satisfy the imminent danger requirement. He is not in

20

imminent danger of execution because this Court has entered a stay

21

of execution in his pending federal habeas corpus action.

22

Bonilla v. Ayers, No. C 08-0471 CW (PR), Docket no. 3.

23

See

Further, the relief Plaintiff seeks in these cases pertains

24

solely to his ongoing attempts to invalidate his conviction.

25

Therefore, such claims, if raised, must be brought by appointed

26

counsel in Plaintiff's pending federal habeas corpus action.

27

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's requests

28

to proceed IFP are DENIED and these actions are hereby DISMISSED.

2

1
2

The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions,
enter judgment and close the files.

3

The Clerk shall file a copy of this Order in C 08-0471 CW.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

DATED: 11/8/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

7
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
3