From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bonilla v. Dawson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 11, 2013
Case No.: 13-00953 CW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2013)

Opinion

Case No.: 13-00951 CW (PR) Case No.: 13-00952 CW (PR) Case No.: 13-00953 CW (PR) Case No.: 13-00954 CW (PR) Case No.: 13-00955 CW (PR)

03-11-2013

STEVEN BONILLA AND SUNSTATE TROPICAL WHOLESALE NURSERY, Plaintiffs, v. FLOY E. DAWSON, et al., Defendants. STEVEN BONILLA AND SUNSTATE TROPICAL WHOLESALE NURSERY, Plaintiffs, v. KATHLEEN BONILLA, Defendant. STEVEN BONILLA AND SUNSTATE TROPICAL WHOLESALE NURSERY, Plaintiffs, v. FRANCIE KOEHLER, et al., Defendants. STEVEN BONILLA AND SUNSTATE TROPICAL WHOLESALE NURSERY, Plaintiffs, v. PACIFIC GROWERS, et al., Defendants. STEVEN BONILLA AND SUNSTATE TROPICAL WHOLESALE NURSERY, Plaintiffs, v. PACIFIC GROWERS, Defendant.


ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND

TERMINATING PENDING MOTIONS

Plaintiff Steven Bonilla is a state prisoner proceeding pro se who seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these five civil actions. He brings these actions on behalf of Sunstate Tropical Wholesale Nursery, a company of which he alleges he is the president and owner. In these actions, he attempts to sue various individuals and entities who he maintains are "in default of an opportunity to respond" to a "commercial affidavit" he sent them demanding the payment of debt owed to the company. According to Plaintiff, Defendants' activities are also related to his criminal conviction. Plaintiff previously has attempted to sue these same individuals and entities in federal court on numerous occasions. This Court has dismissed all of those actions for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

On October 25, 2011, the Court informed Plaintiff that, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he no longer qualifies to proceed IFP in any civil 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. The sole exception to this restriction is that Plaintiff may proceed IFP if he "is under imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The plain language of the imminent danger clause in § 1915(g) indicates that "imminent danger" is to be assessed at the time of filing of the complaint. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007).

Here, Plaintiff has not alleged facts that show he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed these complaints. Further, the fact that Plaintiff has been sentenced to death does not, at this time, satisfy the imminent danger requirement. He is not in imminent danger of execution because this Court has entered a stay of execution in his pending federal habeas corpus action. See Bonilla v. Ayers, No. C 08-0471 CW (PR), Docket no. 3.

Moreover, as the Court has explained to Plaintiff on numerous occasions, to the extent the relief he seeks pertains to his ongoing attempts to invalidate his conviction, such claims, if raised, must be brought by appointed counsel in his pending federal habeas corpus action.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's requests to proceed IFP are DENIED and these actions are hereby DISMISSED.

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________

CLAUDIA WILKEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Bonilla v. Dawson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 11, 2013
Case No.: 13-00953 CW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2013)
Case details for

Bonilla v. Dawson

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN BONILLA AND SUNSTATE TROPICAL WHOLESALE NURSERY, Plaintiffs, v…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 11, 2013

Citations

Case No.: 13-00953 CW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2013)

Citing Cases

Bonilla v. Delaney

Plaintiff has been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is…

Bonilla v. Bender

Plaintiff has been disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is…