Bonilla

N.D. California

Bonilla

DecidedJanuary 13, 2023

Docket4:22-cv-09115

StatusUnknown

This text of Bonilla (Bonilla) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bonilla, (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

Jan 13 2023 Mark B. Busby CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT ] NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFOR OAKLAND 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 22-cv-9099-PJH ‘ Plaintiff, 22-cv-9101-PJH 22-cv-9115-PJH 7 v. 22-cv-9116-PJH g 22-cv-9117-PJH SANTA CRUZ COUNTY SUPERIOR 9 COURT et. al., 22-cv-9118-PJH Defendant 22-cv-9119-PJH 10 orendan's 22-cv-9120-PJH 11 22-cv-9127-PJH 22-cv-9147-PJH g

13 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE CASES WITH PREJUDICE 14

15 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 16 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas

petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 Z 18 YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See /n 19 re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7. 20 Plaintiff presents nearly identical claims in these actions. He names as 21 defendants various state superior courts and state judges. He seeks relief regarding his 22 underlying conviction or how his other cases were handled by the state and federal 23 courts. 24 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, 25 he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is 26 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 27 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case 28

1 No. 13-0951 CW. 2 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent 3 || danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an 4 IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 5 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S. 6 || District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 7 || 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with 8 || prejudice. 9 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 10 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. a (12 Dated: January 13, 2023

2B -

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON Id United States District Judge 16 ee TAPJHALL\_psp\2022\Bonilla '22\Bonilla Dismissals 19.docx

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Jan 13 2023 Mark B. Busby CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT ] NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFOR OAKLAND 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 22-cv-9099-PJH ‘ Plaintiff, 22-cv-9101-PJH 22-cv-9115-PJH 7 v. 22-cv-9116-PJH g 22-cv-9117-PJH SANTA CRUZ COUNTY SUPERIOR 9 COURT et. al., 22-cv-9118-PJH Defendant 22-cv-9119-PJH 10 orendan's 22-cv-9120-PJH 11 22-cv-9127-PJH 22-cv-9147-PJH g

13 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE CASES WITH PREJUDICE 14

15 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 16 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas

petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 Z 18 YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See /n 19 re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7. 20 Plaintiff presents nearly identical claims in these actions. He names as 21 defendants various state superior courts and state judges. He seeks relief regarding his 22 underlying conviction or how his other cases were handled by the state and federal 23 courts. 24 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, 25 he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is 26 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 27 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case 28

1 No. 13-0951 CW. 2 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent 3 || danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an 4 IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 5 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S. 6 || District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 7 || 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with 8 || prejudice. 9 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 10 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. a (12 Dated: January 13, 2023

2B -

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON Id United States District Judge 16 ee TAPJHALL\_psp\2022\Bonilla '22\Bonilla Dismissals 19.docx

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bonilla, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonilla-cand-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack