Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00471/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00471-52/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STEVEN W. BONILLA, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

RON DAVIS, Warden, San Quentin State 

Prison 

Respondent.

Case No. 08-CV-0471 YGR 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR DISCOVERY AND PETITION TO UNSEAL 

DOCUMENTS IN CASE NOS. 88-CR-259 AJZ

MISC AND GRAND JURY 87-3, 8703546 

INTRODUCTION 

 Petitioner filed a finalized petition on May 10, 2016. ECF Doc. No. 353. He has now filed 

three concurrent motions: a motion to stay the case pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 

(2005); a motion for discovery; and a petition to unseal documents in two grand jury proceedings. 

The motion to stay and its association motion to exceed the page limit will be addressed by 

separate order. For the reasons stated herein, the motion for discovery and petition to unseal 

documents are DENIED. 

STATEMENT 

Petitioner Steven Bonilla has been sentenced to death by the Superior Court of California 

for the County of Alameda. On January 22, 2008, while his state habeas case was still being 

litigated, Bonilla filed a request for appointment of counsel for his future federal habeas litigation 

in this Court. Pursuant to Habeas Local Rule 2254-25, this Court granted his request for 

appointment of counsel and referred this action to the Northern District’s Selection Board for the 

recommendation of qualified counsel to represent petitioner in these proceedings. 

Case 4:08-cv-00471-YGR Document 375 Filed 12/13/16 Page 1 of 6
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

 On May 2, 2012, this Court issued an order staying all proceedings in this matter until 

counsel was appointed to represent Petitioner. On May 23, 2012, this Court denied Petitioner’s 

request to represent himself in these proceedings. The Federal Public Defender for the District of 

Nevada was appointed to represent Petitioner on July 25, 2012. The stay of proceedings was lifted 

at that time. 

 Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. ECF Doc. No. 139. He then filed a 

motion to take depositions (ECF Doc. No. 175), a petition for order directing release of various 

documents (ECF Doc. No. 176), and a motion for discovery (ECF Doc. No. 177). The respondent 

opposed petitioner’s motions (ECF Doc. Nos. 183, 184) and petitioner replied (ECF Doc. Nos. 

199, 200). 

 In an effort to assist the Court in reaching a resolution on the discovery motions, the parties 

were requested to brief the impact of Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2010), on petitioner’s 

discovery motions and petition. ECF Doc. No. 277. Ultimately, the Court denied those motions 

without prejudice because petitioner cannot litigate a petition containing both exhausted and 

unexhausted claims. ECF Doc. No. 317. 

 Petitioner filed his finalized petition on May 10, 2016. ECF Doc. No. 353. Subsequently, 

petitioner filed (1) a motion to stay the case pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) 

(ECF Doc. No. 361); (2) a motion for leave to conduct discovery from federal and out of state 

entities (ECF Doc. 363); and (3) a “Petition for Order Directing Release of Transcripts, 

Subpoenas, Records, Recordings, Notes and any Other Associated Materials Concerning In Re: 

Grand Jury Investigation, CR 88-259 MISC, CR 88-259 AJZ, and Grand Jury 87-3, 8703546, 

United States District Court, Northern District of California” (ECF Doc. No. 364). Respondent 

opposes all three of these motions. ECF 367. The motion for stay is addressed by separate order. 

/// 

/// 

Case 4:08-cv-00471-YGR Document 375 Filed 12/13/16 Page 2 of 6
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

ANALYSIS 

1. MOTION FOR DISCOVERY FROM FEDERAL AND OUT-OF-STATE ENTITIES

The Court denied Petitioner’s previously filed discovery motion without prejudice to renew 

once his petition was fully exhausted because a petitioner cannot litigate a mixed petition. 

“Discovery requests should not be granted when the petition filed involves both exhausted and 

unexhausted claims.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct. (“Thomas”), 144 F.3d 618, 621 (9th Cir. 

1998), citing Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct. (“Roberts”), 113 F.3d 149 (9th Cir. 1997). In 

Thomas, the petitioner was granted depositions on unexhausted claims, but only after those claims 

were dismissed and he moved to stay and abey the pending federal habeas petition while he 

returned to state court to exhaust the unexhausted claims. Id. at 620. The petitioner in Thomas 

was able to show a need for pre-litigation depositions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 27, but the court there 

was only able to consider that showing once it had before it a valid petition. Id. at 621-622. Here, 

as before, Petitioner does not have a “valid” petition because it is not a fully exhausted one. He 

has not provided the Court with any authority that would prompt a change the prior ruling on the 

matter. 

Petitioner argues that he is entitled to the discovery to support his argument that he has good 

cause to warrant a stay and abeyance under Rhines. However, as evidenced by the concurrently 

filed order granting Petitioner’s request for a stay, he does not need the requested discovery to 

establish good cause. 

Petitioner also argues that he is entitled to the discovery under Gonzalez v. Wong, 667 F.3d 

965, 978-80 (9th Cir. 2011), because he will need to present all available evidence to the state 

court during the exhaustion proceedings or be barred from presenting it to this Court by Cullen v. 

Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011). Gonzalez does not create an exception to the rule that a 

petitioner cannot litigate a mixed petition and does not create an entitlement to discovery. Rather, 

it establishes a framework for how to address belatedly disclosed evidence that was withheld by 

Case 4:08-cv-00471-YGR Document 375 Filed 12/13/16 Page 3 of 6
4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

the state and would ordinarily be barred from presentation in federal court under Pinholster. 

Gonzalez, 667 F.3d at 978-90. 

While the Court is sympathetic to Petitioner’s argument that without a grant of discovery now 

on items for which the state court has already denied discovery, Petitioner will later be in the 

position of resuming his federal habeas proceeding, obtaining the discovery he seeks now, and 

then petitioning to return to the state court to present those documents there, as required by 

Pinholster. However, this Court is bound by the Court of Appeals’ precedent on the matter and 

Petitioner has presented no authority to the contrary. Accordingly, his motion is denied without 

prejudice to renew following exhaustion of his unexhausted claims.

2. PETITION TO UNSEAL DOCUMENTS IN GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS

Petitioner also seeks the unsealing and disclosure of all materials in two grand jury 

proceedings: 88-cr-259 AJZ MISC and Grand Jury 87-3, 8703546.1 He notes that he does not 

intend to limit his request for unsealing and disclosure to these two cases if other cases have 

responsive information. Petitioner asserts that he needs this information “to determine whether 

and how his stolen phone records were utilized during the federal investigations. [Petitioner] 

seeks to determine whether the stolen phone records were used as part of the probable cause 

finding for the issuance of federal subpoenas and/or whether the February 19, 1988 grand jury 

subpoena was used to conceal the FBI’s participation in the theft of his home phone records.” Pet. 

at 3. 

While matters before a grand jury must generally remain confidential, pursuant to Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 6(e)(3)E(I), a court may authorize disclosure of a grand jury matter “preliminarily to or in 

connection with a judicial proceeding.” The disclosure may be “at a time, in a manner and subject 

 

1

 “Grand Jury 87-3, 8703546” is not the number of a grand jury proceeding. The proceeding 

number is 87-3; 870346 is the document number for the February 19, 1988 subpoena for 

Petitioner’s phone records. 

Case 4:08-cv-00471-YGR Document 375 Filed 12/13/16 Page 4 of 6
5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

to any other conditions” that the court directs. 

The Ninth Circuit has held that in order to justify disclosure, parties must demonstrate “that 

the material they seek is needed to avoid a possible injustice in another judicial proceeding, that 

the need for disclosure is greater than the need for continued secrecy, and that their request is 

structured to cover only material so needed.” United States v. Fischbach and Moore, Inc., 776 

F.2d 839, 843 (9th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Petitioner has not met his burden. 

Petitioner’s request is overbroad. He seeks to unseal the entire dockets including confidential 

information of other people, such as bank and telephone records. While a significant amount of 

time has passed between the convening of the grand juries and now, which Petitioner argues 

weighs in favor of disclosure of the documents, Petitioner does not benefit from the unsealing of 

another person’s personal and unrelated information. 

It also is unclear whether unsealing any documents, let alone the entire dockets, would work to 

“avoid a possible injustice.” Fishbach, 776 F.2d 843. Petitioner argues that the documents may 

show whether the phone records were used to support probable cause findings for the issuance of 

federal subpoenas. Petitioner does not identify the subpoenas to which he refers. Federal criminal 

proceedings were never initiated against him. If he is referring to the grand jury subpoenas, as 

evidenced by the February 26, 1988 subpoena for Petitioner’s telephone records, the United States 

Attorney’s office can issue subpoenas of its own accord without a probable cause finding. 

Without knowing the kind of federal subpoena to which Petitioner refers, the Court cannot evalute 

whether a probable cause finding was even necessary for its issuance. 

Thus, Petitioner’s petition to unseal is overly broad and must be denied. Respondent is 

encouraged to cooperate in Petitioner’s discovery requests to avoid further delay and the 

possibility of a second return to state court. 

/// 

/// 

Case 4:08-cv-00471-YGR Document 375 Filed 12/13/16 Page 5 of 6
6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, the discovery motion is DENIED without prejudice to renew 

following exhaustion of all unexhausted claims in state court. The petition for unsealing and 

release of records in 88-cr-259 AJZ MISC and Grand Jury 87-3 also is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 13, 2016 ________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:08-cv-00471-YGR Document 375 Filed 12/13/16 Page 6 of 6