Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00762/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00762-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1 

18cv0762 JAH (RBB) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, 

Petitioner,

v. 

ALL 58 COUNTIES, ITS SUPERIOR 

COURTS AND JUDGES CONCERNED 

IN EXECUTING THE VOID 

JUDGMENT/SENTENCE, 

Respondents.

 Case No.: 18cv0762 JAH (RBB) 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND 

 

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. 

Case 3:18-cv-00762-JAH-RBB Document 2 Filed 05/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2 

18cv0762 JAH (RBB) 

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

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: 

Case 3:18-cv-00762-JAH-RBB Document 2 Filed 05/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3 

18cv0762 JAH (RBB) 

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

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 United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Further, the Court notes that Petitioner cannot simply amend his Petition to state a 

federal habeas claim and then refile the amended petition in this case. He must exhaust 

state judicial remedies before bringing his claims via federal habeas. State prisoners who 

wish to challenge their state court conviction must first exhaust state judicial remedies. 

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). To exhaust 

state judicial remedies, a California state prisoner must present the California Supreme 

Court with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of every issue raised in his or her 

federal habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry, 481 U.S. at 133-34. 

Moreover, to properly exhaust state court judicial remedies a petitioner must allege, in 

state court, how one or more of his or her federal rights have been violated. The Supreme 

Court in Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995) reasoned: “If state courts are to be given 

the opportunity to correct alleged violations of prisoners’ federal rights, they must surely 

be alerted to the fact that the prisoners are asserting claims under the United States 

Constitution.” Id. at 365-66 (emphasis added). For example, “[i]f a habeas petitioner 

wishes to claim that an evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him the due process 

of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he must say so, not only in federal 

court, but in state court.” Id. (emphasis added). 

Additionally, the Court cautions Petitioner that under the Antiterrorism and 

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Act), signed into law on April 24, 1996, a one-year 

Case 3:18-cv-00762-JAH-RBB Document 2 Filed 05/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4 

18cv0762 JAH (RBB) 

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

period of limitation applies to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in 

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period runs from the 

latest of: 

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct 

review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review; 

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by 

State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is 

removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action; 

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially 

recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by 

the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral 

review; or 

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented 

could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D) (West Supp. 2002). 

The Court also notes that the statute of limitations does not run while a properly 

filed state habeas corpus petition is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. Galaza, 

183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1104 (2000); but see Artuz v. 

Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8 (2000) (holding that “an application is ‘properly filed’ when its 

delivery and acceptance [by the appropriate court officer for placement into the record] 

are in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing filings.”). However, 

absent some other basis for tolling, the statute of limitations does run while a federal 

habeas petition is pending. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001). 

Case 3:18-cv-00762-JAH-RBB Document 2 Filed 05/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5 

18cv0762 JAH (RBB) 

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

CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice and with leave 

to amend. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than June 29, 2018: (1) 

pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee; AND (2) 

file a First Amended Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies set forth above. The 

Clerk of Court is directed to mail Petitioner a blank motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis form and a blank First Amended Petition form together with a copy of this 

Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 1, 2018 

 __________________________________ 

 HON. JOHN A. HOUSTON

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:18-cv-00762-JAH-RBB Document 2 Filed 05/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5