Bonilla et al v. Beard

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING 8 LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DISMISSING ACTIONS; TERMINATING ALL PENDING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/2/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

STEVEN BONILLA, et al.,

5

Plaintiffs,

6

v.

7
8

JEFFREY BEARD, Director of
California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation,
Defendant.

9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Case No.: 14-1990 CW (PR)

STEVEN BONILLA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11

v.
12
13

JEFFREY BEARD, Director of
California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation,

14

Case No.: 14-2091 CW (PR)
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS; DISMISSING
ACTIONS; TERMINATING ALL
PENDING MOTIONS

Defendant.

15
16

Plaintiff Steven Bonilla, a state prisoner incarcerted at San

17

Quentin State Prison (SQSP) and a frequent litigator in this

18

Court, has filed these two pro se civil actions on behalf of

19

himself and other inmates at SQSP.

20

Bonilla filed documents stating that he wants to dismiss the

21

claims of all other Plaintiffs and to proceed only on behalf of

22

himself.

23

individuals listed as Plaintiffs filed letters explaining that

24

Bonilla used their names without their permission and requesting

25

that their claims be dismissed from the action.

26

appearing, except for Bonilla, the Court dismisses the claims of

27

all individuals named as Plaintiffs in these actions.

28

of the Court shall not charge these individuals a filing fee.

After he filed both actions,

In case number C 14-2091 CW (PR), many of the

For good cause

The Clerk

1

Before the Court reviews the complaints, it addresses a

2

preliminary matter.

3

entitled, “Peremptory Challenges,” in which he seeks to recuse the

4

undersigned judge on the grounds of alleged prejudice against him.

5

Because these documents do not satisfy the requirements for

6

recusal of a judge listed in 28 U.S.C. § 144 or 28 U.S.C. § 455,

7

the requests for recusal are denied.

8
9

In each case, Bonilla files a document

In case number C 14-2091 CW (PR), Bonilla has filed a motion
to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).

In case number C 14-1990 CW

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

(PR), Bonilla has not filed a motion to proceed IFP, although the

11

Clerk has sent him a notice that he must do so or his complaint

12

will be dismissed.

13

of mandate in which Plaintiff Bonilla challenges operational

14

procedure (OP) 608, newly implemented by the California Department

15

of Corrections and Rehabilitations (CDCR) for Grade A condemned

16

inmates at SQSP.

17

must be dismissed.

18

Both of these actions are petitions for writs

For the following reasons, both of these actions

On October 25, 2011, the Court informed Bonilla that, in

19

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he no longer qualifies to

20

proceed IFP in any civil action he files in this Court.

21

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

22

at 6:23-7:19.

23

Bonilla may proceed IFP if he “is under imminent danger of serious

24

physical injury.”

25

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

26

danger” is to be assessed at the time of filing of the complaint.

27

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

28

See In re

The sole exception to this restriction is that

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

The plain language of the

In these actions, Plaintiff Bonilla has not alleged facts
2

1

that show he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at

2

the time he filed them.

3

challenges OP 608 on the ground that it requires condemned

4

inmates, such as himself, to be subject to new housing

5

requirements, which he fails to specify.

6

Plaintiff Bonilla challenges OP 608 on the ground that it requires

7

Grade A condemned inmates to be escorted by at least one

8

correctional officer and to be in restraints while under escort.

9

Neither of Plaintiff Bonilla’s grounds for challenging OP 608

In C 14-1990 CW (PR), Plaintiff Bonilla

In C 14-2041 CW (PR),

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

places him in imminent danger of serious physical injury.

11

Therefore, these actions must be dismissed under 28 U.S.C.

12

§ 1915(g).

13

These actions also must be dismissed because this Court lacks

14

authority to issue a writ of mandamus to direct state officials in

15

the performance of their duties; a petition for a writ of mandamus

16

compelling a state official to take or refrain from taking some

17

action is frivolous as a matter of law.

18

Dist. Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991).

19

Demos v. United States

CONCLUSION

20

Based on the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

21

1. With the exception of Plaintiff Bonilla, the claims of all

22

named Plaintiffs are dismissed from these actions and the Clerk of

23

the Court shall not charge them a filing fee.

24

2. Plaintiff Bonilla’s requests for recusal are denied.

25

3. Plaintiff Bonilla’s request to proceed IFP in case number

26

C 14-2014 CW (PR) is DENIED and both actions are DISMISSED.

27

action is without legal merit.

28

4. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending
3

Each

1

motions, enter judgment and close the files.

2

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

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: 6/2/2014
________________________
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
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
4