Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00471/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00471-43/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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN W. BONILLA,

Petitioner, 

 v.

RON DAVIS, Warden, San Quentin

State Prison

Respondent. /

No. 08-CV-471 YGR

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

PRO SE MOTIONS BASED ON THE

CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT

AND DIRECTING CLERK OF

COURT TO RETURN UNFILED

ANY NEW PRO SE FILINGS

INTRODUCTION

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.

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.

Despite the appointment of counsel, Petitioner has filed numerous pro se pleadings. To

date, petitioner has filed pro se 198 letters, notices, and motions, all seeking to vacate his

Case 4:08-cv-00471-YGR Document 313 Filed 07/07/15 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

conviction in a manner outside the adjudication of his habeas corpus petition. The Court has

ruled on 171 of those and twenty-seven remain. In its orders on these motions, letters, and

requests, the Court has repeatedly directed petitioner to file any motions through his appointed

counsel. Petitioner fails to adheres to the Court’s instructions.

PENDING PRO SE MOTIONS BASED ON CVRA

Nearly all of the motions left to be dispensed with relate to petitioner’s contention that

he is a victim within the meaning of the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771

and his dissatisfaction with the Court’s handling of these motions. Petitioner has filed these

motions in an effort to overturn his conviction and return assets that were seized as a part of the

conviction process. 

The CVRA was enacted “to make crime victims full participants in the criminal justice

system.” Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court for C.D. Cal., 435 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2006). The Act

enumerates rights afforded to crime victims in “[i]n any court proceeding involving an offense

against a crime victim.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(b)(1). The Court has reviewed petitioner’s pro se

filings and finds that he has not adequately demonstrated that he may avail himself of the

CVRA’s protections because it is not clear that he is a victim of any federal crime within the

meaning of the CVRA. See id. § 3771(e). 

Furthermore, there is no evidence of a pending criminal investigation or formal criminal

charges against the agents involved in the investigation against petitioner in connection with

their alleged misconduct sufficient to trigger the rights that petitioner seeks to invoke under the

CVRA. See Does v. United States, 817 F.Supp.2d 1337, 1342–43 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (some

CVRA rights may attach before formal charges, but deferring ruling on what those rights are);

In re Petersen, No. 2:10–CV–298 RM, 2010 WL 5108692, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010)

(many CVRA rights only arise after charges brought). 

Finally, release from conviction is not one of the rights afforded under the CVRA. See

18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). Accordingly, petitioner’s 23 motions alleging abuses under the CVRA are

denied (ECF Dkt. Nos. 278-284, 286-290, 295, 300-304, 306, and 309-312), as are petitioner’s

remaining challenges for cause based on the Court’s failure to rule on the merits of these

Case 4:08-cv-00471-YGR Document 313 Filed 07/07/15 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

motions (ECF. Dkt. Nos. 294, 298, 299, and 308). 

RESTRICTION ON FUTURE PRO SE FILINGS 

Of the 307 documents on the docket, 198 are pro se filings by petitioner seeking release

from his conviction or challenging decisions to such pro se filings. In addition to the

voluminous filings regarding the CVRA, petitioner filed 71 documents related to the “Clean

Hands Doctrine,” wherein he made arguments very similar to those in his CVRA motions and

alleged an entitlement to release from conviction (ECF Dkt. Nos. 188-189, 191-195, 197-198,

201-239, 242-260, 262-265, and 274). There was no meritorious reason to file more than one

such motion, and even one would have been baseless.

Petitioner’s inordinate number of repetitive and frivolous filings require resources that

should be applied to the administration of his habeas corpus petition and to other actions

pending within the Court. He has a pattern of abusive and repetitive filings in this action. 

Flagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person to

preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims

of other litigants. See De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 489

U.S. 1001 (1990). 

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). The “right to

counsel and the right to proceed pro se are disjunctive rights.” United States v. Crowhurst, 629

F.2d 1297, 1301 (9th Cir. 1980). “There 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,” but which do not overly restrict petitioner’s

access to the Court. Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989) (collecting cases). 

Here, petitioner has two attorneys acting on his behalf who are able to file any motion that, in

their professional judgment, they deem to have merit. Accordingly, all motions in this

proceeding must be filed by counsel and those that are sent pro se will be returned unfiled to

petitioner, unless such motions relate to the adequacy of appointed counsel.

//

Case 4:08-cv-00471-YGR Document 313 Filed 07/07/15 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

CONCLUSION

Petitioner’s pro se motions under the CVRA are denied as frivolous, as are his related

“challenges for cause.” The Clerk is directed to close ECF Dkt. Nos. 278-284, 286-290, 294-

295, 298-304, 306, 308-312. Additionally, the Clerk is directed to return as unfiled any new

pro se pleading by petitioner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2015. YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:08-cv-00471-YGR Document 313 Filed 07/07/15 Page 4 of 4