Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05129/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05129-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Wayne Bonilla
Petitioner
Francie Koehler
Respondent
Randy Ontiveros
Respondent
Rand Investigation
Respondent

Document Text:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA,

Plaintiff,

v.

RANDY ONTIVEROS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-05129-VC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Steven Wayne Bonilla is a state prisoner who has filed a pro se petition for a 

writ of mandamus to compel disclosure by Randy Ontiveros, Francie Koehler and Rand 

Investigation of telephone records related to Bonilla’s state criminal case that they allegedly 

provided to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Bonilla has been disqualified from proceeding 

in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is “under imminent danger of serious 

physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, No. 

C 11-3180 CW (PR); Bonilla v. Dawson, No. C 13-0951 CW (PR). 

The allegations in this complaint do not show that Bonilla was in imminent danger at the 

time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed in forma pauperis. Furthermore, he may not 

proceed even if he pays the filing fee because this court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of 

mandamus. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Section 1361 provides, “[t]he district courts shall have 

original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of 

the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” This Court 

cannot order the defendants to disclose telephone records because they are not an officer, 

employee or agency of the United States. And, contrary to Bonilla’s argument, the Court knows 

Case 3:16-cv-05129-VC Document 3 Filed 09/19/16 Page 1 of 2
2

of no authority holding, for purposes of mandamus jurisdiction, that a private individual or 

company becomes a federal agent by providing information to the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation. 

Furthermore, the relief Plaintiff seeks pertains to his ongoing attempts to invalidate his 

state criminal conviction. Therefore, such claims, if raised, must be brought by Bonilla’s counsel 

in his pending federal habeas corpus action, Bonilla v. Ayers, No. C 08-0471 YGR (PR).

Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice because amendment would be futile. 

The Clerk of the Court shall enter a separate judgment and close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

September 19, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-05129-VC Document 3 Filed 09/19/16 Page 2 of 2