Bonilla

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 13, 2021
• Docket: 4:21-cv-06325
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 21-cv-04520-PJH Plaintiff, 21-cv-06325-PJH 5

v. 6

7 JUDGE RICHARD SEEBORG, O R D E R D I S MISSING MULTIPLE Defendant. CASES WITH PREJUDICE 8

10 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 11 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas 12 petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 13 YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In 14 re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7. 15 In one of these cases, plaintiff names a federal judge as the defendant.1 Plaintiff 16 presents very similar claims in these actions. He seeks relief regarding his underlying 17 conviction or how his other cases were handled by the state and federal courts. 18 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, 19 he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is 20 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 21 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case 22 No. 13-0951 CW. 23 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent 24 danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an 25 IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 26 27 1 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S. 2 District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 3 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with 4 prejudice. 5 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality 6 might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. 7 See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate 8 reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases 9 assigned to that judge). 10 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 11 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: September 13, 2021 14 15 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 16 United States District Judge 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27