Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00471/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00471-49/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 MOTIONS

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. 

Since that time, Petitioner repeatedly has sent numerous documents for filing with the Court. 

The Court screens all documents that contain a reference in the title to “ineffective assistance of 

counsel” or a “conflict of interest” with counsel to confirm whether the title accurately represents the 

substance of the motion. The Court has filed and denied two of Petitioner’s pro se motions and 

returned the rest. 

Petitioner this week has sent two pro se pleadings, both of which allege ineffective assistance 

of counsel and conflict with counsel. (Dkt. 340, 341). One of Petitioner’s current pleadings demands 

to know why his documents are being returned when he is alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. 

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Petitioner has no constitutional right to counsel on 

collateral review and thus “a petitioner cannot claim constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel 

in such proceedings.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991). 

Case 4:08-cv-00471-YGR Document 342 Filed 05/04/16 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 

Because he is a capital prisoner, Petitioner does have a statutory right to counsel in these 

proceedings. 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2) (2012). That includes the right “for that counsel meaningfully to 

research and present [his] habeas claims.” McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 858 (1994). However, 

Petitioner does not have a right to dictate tactics in the pursuit of his habeas petition. See United 

States v. Mayo, 646 F.2d 369, 375 (9th Cir. 1981). Nor does he have “a constitutional right to compel 

appointed counsel to press nonfrivolous points requested by [him], if counsel, as a matter of 

professional judgment, decides not to present those points.” Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751 

(1983). 

As is the case with the present filing, Petitioner’s pro se filings, in whatever legal guise they 

come, consistently challenge the seizure of his phone records. That issue is raised as Claim Two in 

his Petition. His dispute with counsel as to how it is raised and in what format does not constitute 

either ineffective assistance of counsel or a genuine conflict of interest with counsel. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s pro se motions are DENIED. As previously instructed, Petitioner 

shall file any substantive motions filed through his court-appointed counsel. 

The Court will continue to screen any pro se motions that allege a conflict with or the 

ineffective assistance of counsel. If those motions fail to assert a genuine conflict with appointed 

counsel, they will be returned unfiled. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 4, 2016 

____________________________________ 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:08-cv-00471-YGR Document 342 Filed 05/04/16 Page 2 of 2