Bonilla v. Illman

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [3] 4 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 24-cv-6883-PJH Plaintiff, 24-cv-6885-PJH [5] 24-cv-6924-PJH v. 6 24-cv-6925-PJH 7 24-cv-7260-PJH ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT 24-cv-7261-PJH 8 ATTORNEY’S OFFICE et. al., 24-cv-7263-PJH Defendants. 9 24-cv-7264-PJH 10 24-cv-7265-PJH 24-cv-7311-PJH [11] 24-cv-7312-PJH 12 24-cv-7313-PJH 13 24-cv-7315-PJH 24-cv-7316-PJH [14] 24-cv-7319-PJH 15 24-cv-7320-PJH 16 24-cv-7321-PJH 24-cv-7322-PJH [17] 24-cv-7323-PJH 18 24-cv-7378-PJH 19 24-cv-7380-PJH 24-cv-7381-PJH [20] 24-cv-7382-PJH [21] 22 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE CASES WITH PREJUDICE [24] Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 25 U.S.C. § 1983 . Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas [26] petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 [27] YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In 1 re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7. 2 Plaintiff presents nearly identical claims in these actions. He names as 3 defendants various federal and state judges and state courts. He seeks relief regarding 4 his underlying conviction or how his other cases were handled by the state and federal 5 courts. 6 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, 7 he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g) unless he is 8 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 9 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case 10 No. 13-0951 CW. 11 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent 12 danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an 13 IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 14 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S. 15 District Court, 925 F.2d 1160 , 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, [16] 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with 17 prejudice. The court notes that plaintiff has an extensive history of filing similar frivolous 18 cases.1 19 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality 20 might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. 21 See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate 22 reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases 23 assigned to that judge). 2 [25] 1 The undersigned is the fourth judge assigned cases filed by plaintiff. This is the 68th 26 order issued by the undersigned since April 30, 2020, pertaining to 922 different cases. Plaintiff filed 962 other cases with the three other judges since 2011. [27] 2 Plaintiff names the undersigned as a defendant in three of these cases, though presents no specific allegations. See Case Nos. 24-6925; 24-7261; 24-7311. Plaintiff 1 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 2 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: October 24, 2024 [5] 6 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 7 United States District Judge