Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Bonilla v. All 58 Counties

United States District Court, S.D. California

May 1, 2018

STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Petitioner,
v.
ALL 58 COUNTIES, ITS SUPERIOR COURTS AND JUDGES CONCERNED IN EXECUTING THE VOID JUDGMENT/SENTENCE, Respondents.

          ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

          HON. JOHN A. HOUSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

         FAILURE TO SATSIFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

         Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed in forma pauperis. This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. Foll. § 2254.

         JURISDICTION AND VENUE

         A petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in the United States District Court of either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the judicial district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v.30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). Petitioner is presently confined at San Quentin State Prison, located in Marin County, which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). Although it is not entirely clear, Petitioner appears to be challenging a conviction from Alameda County because he claims that Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him. (See Pet., ECF No. 1 at 3.) Alameda County is also located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). Accordingly, jurisdiction appears to lie in the Northern District and not the Southern District.

         FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE FEDERAL CLAIM

         Additionally, in accordance with Rule 4 of the rules governing § 2254 cases, Petitioner has failed to allege that his state court conviction or sentence violates the Constitution of the United States.

         Title 28, United States Code, § 2254(a), sets forth the following scope of review for federal habeas corpus claims:

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (emphasis added); see Hernandez v. Ylst, 930 F.2d 714, 719 (9th Cir. 1991); Mannhalt v. Reed, 847 F.2d 576, 579 (9th Cir. 1988); Kealohapauole v. Shimoda, 800 F.2d 1463, 1464-65 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, to present a cognizable federal habeas corpus claim under § 2254, a state prisoner must allege both that he is in custody pursuant to a “judgment of a State court, ” and that he is in custody in “violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Here, Petitioner claims the following:

When Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley was compelled to prove subject matter jurisdiction was lawfully established, she acquiesced to the courts lack of jurisdiction to render a judgment. She also conceded, and admitted, to there having been no premeditated crime committed by anyone, and that all of the evidence was the fruit of a federal grand jury subpoena that never existed except one that was fabricated and fraudulently forged to PURPOSELY CONCEAL THE ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF THE PETITIONER'S PHONE RECORDS.

(Pet., ECF No. 1 at 3.)

         In no way does Petitioner claim he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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