Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06678/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06678-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Wayne Bonilla
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BONILLA,

Petitioner,

v.

Case No. 19-cv-06678-VC (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITH 

PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Steven Wayne Bonilla, a state inmate, has filed a pro se document entitled, “In 

re: to the matter of Steven Wayne Bonilla being represented by court appointed counsel,” in 

which he argues the California case, In re Barnett, 31 Cal. 4th 466 (2003), unconstitutionally 

violates his First Amendment right to redress his grievances. The Clerk of the Court designated 

this case as a petition for a writ of mandamus.

In Barnett, the California Supreme Court held that capital inmates who are represented by 

counsel cannot file pro se submissions to the court, to the extent the submission challenges or 

pertains to the legality of the death judgment. Id. at 477. The Court excepted from this rule a 

pro se motion regarding the inmate’s legal representation. Id. at 477 n.7. 

The gravamen of Bonilla’s petition is his dissatisfaction with his legal representation in 

his state court criminal proceedings and in his federal court habeas proceedings. Barnett does

not preclude Bonilla’s filing a pro se motion regarding his legal representation. However, this 

motion must be filed in his pending habeas case, Bonilla v. Ayers, Jr., 08-0471 YGR, not as a 

Case 3:19-cv-06678-VC Document 5 Filed 11/25/19 Page 1 of 2
2

separate petition. 

Furthermore, this Court lacks the authority to issue orders to a state court or to another 

federal district court. See Demos v. U.S. District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991)

(petition for a writ of mandamus to compel a state court or official to take some action is 

frivolous as a matter of law); Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 

1987) (a federal district court lacks authority to issue a writ of mandamus to another district 

court). 

This is not a case in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality might be reasonably 

questioned. See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate 

reason to recuse himself or herself, judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases assigned to 

that judge).

The petition is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk shall close the case, terminate all 

pending motions and shall return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submits after this 

case is closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 25, 2019

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-06678-VC Document 5 Filed 11/25/19 Page 2 of 2