Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00471/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00471-46/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 California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN W. BONILLA, 

 Petitioner, 

 vs. 

RON DAVIS, Warden, San Quentin State 

Prison 

 Respondent. 

Case No.: 08-CV-0471 YGR

ORDER DENYING PRO SE MOTION TO 

DISMISS

In this Court’s July 7, 2015 order, Petitioner was directed to cease filing any substantive pro se

motions and was directed, instead, to have counsel file such motions for him. The only exception 

would be for a motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Petitioner filed a motion labeled “Ineffective Assistance of Counsel - Motion to Dismiss,” 

wherein he challenges both his conviction and the Court’s July 7, 2015 Order directing the Clerk to 

return as unfiled any pro se motions that do not allege ineffective assistance of counsel. To the extent 

Petitioner seeks a dismissal of his conviction, the motion is denied. As stated in the July 7 Order, pro 

se motions challenging Petitioner’s conviction will not be considered. All such motions must be filed 

by appointed counsel. 

To the extent Petitioner challenges the July 7 Order, the pro se motion is construed as a 

motion for reconsideration. So construed, the motion is denied. As stated in the July 7 Order, 

Petitioner is represented by counsel and represented parties do not have the right to proceed pro se. 

See United States v. Olano, 62 F.3d 1180, 1193 (9th Cir. 1995). Petitioner argues that he was not 

given sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard; however, the case Petitioner relies on is 

inapposite. In In re Prewitt, 280 F. Supp. 2d 548 (N.D. Miss. 2003), an attorney was banned from the 

Case 4:08-cv-00471-YGR Document 322 Filed 09/04/15 Page 1 of 2
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 California 

third floor of the local courthouse after misbehavior as both an attorney and a pro se litigant. The 

petitioner there was entitled to a hearing because his physical access to that particular courthouse, and 

eventually all courthouses in the district, was being restricted. The same theory holds true for 

vexatious litigant prefiling orders. See DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990). If 

a litigant’s access to the courts is being severely restricted, he first must be given an opportunity to be 

heard on the matter. Id. Here, however, Petitioner has access to filing motions in this Court -- 

through his court-appointed attorneys. 

Moreover, this Court has the inherent right to manage its own docket. Atchison, Topeka & 

Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Hercules Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 1998); see also DeLong, 912 F.2d at 

1147 (“We recognize that ‘[t]here is strong precedent establishing the inherent power of federal courts 

to regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under the 

appropriate circumstances.’”). 

This court appointed counsel to represent Petitioner on all matters related to the litigation of 

his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because he is represented, Petitioner does not also have a right 

to file his own motions. The pro se motions Petitioner filed were excessive and frivolous and the 

Court has exercised its inherent power to limit the docket to activity that will further the litigation of 

Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s pro se motion is DENIED. Additionally, Petitioner is again directed 

to have any substantive motions filed through his court-appointed counsel. No pro se motions will be 

accepted from Petitioner unless they allege a legitimate conflict of interest. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 4, 2015 

____________________________________ 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:08-cv-00471-YGR Document 322 Filed 09/04/15 Page 2 of 2