Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Steven Bonilla and Sunstate v. Floy E. Dawson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 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.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Claudia Wilken United States District Judge

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND TERMINATING PENDING MOTIONS

2 se who seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these 3 five civil actions. He brings these actions on behalf of Sunstate 4

Plaintiff Steven Bonilla is a state prisoner proceeding pro

Tropical Wholesale Nursery, a company of which he alleges he is 5 the president and owner. In these actions, he attempts to sue 6 various individuals and entities who he maintains are "in default 7 of an opportunity to respond" to a "commercial affidavit" he sent 8 them demanding the payment of debt owed to the company. According 9 to Plaintiff, Defendants' activities are also related to his 10 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 13 failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 14

15 accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he no longer qualifies to 16 proceed IFP in any civil action he files in this Court. See In re 17

Steven Bonilla, Nos. C 11-3180, et seq. CW (PR), Order of Dismissal 18 at 6:23-7:19. The sole exception to this restriction is that 19

Plaintiff may proceed IFP if he "is under imminent danger of 20 serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The plain 21 language of the imminent danger clause in § 1915(g) indicates that 22

"imminent danger" is to be assessed at the time of filing of the 23 complaint. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th 24 Cir. 2007).

26 imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed 27 these complaints. Further, the fact that Plaintiff has been 28 sentenced to death does not, at this time, satisfy the imminent

On October 25, 2011, the Court informed Plaintiff that, in Here, Plaintiff has not alleged facts that show he was in danger requirement. He is not in imminent danger of execution 2 because this Court has entered a stay of execution in his pending 3 federal habeas corpus action. See Bonilla v. Ayers, No. C 08-0471 4 CW (PR), Docket no. 3. 5

Moreover, as the Court has explained to Plaintiff on numerous occasions, to the extent the relief he seeks pertains to his 7 ongoing attempts to invalidate his conviction, such claims, if 8 raised, must be brought by appointed counsel in his pending 9 federal habeas corpus action. 10

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, 13 enter judgment and close the files. 14

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

20130311

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.