Bonilla v. Alameda County District Attorney's Office

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: June 25, 2024
• Docket: 4:24-cv-03418
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 24-cv-3209-PJH Plaintiff, 24-cv-3212-PJH 8 24-cv-3228-PJH v. 9 24-cv-3238-PJH 10 24-cv-3249-PJH JUDGE VINCE CHHABRIA et. al., 24-cv-3342-PJH 11 Defendants. 24-cv-3418-PJH 12 24-cv-3419-PJH 13 24-cv-3507-PJH

24-cv-3509-PJH 14 24-cv-3511-PJH 15 24-cv-3514-PJH 16 24-cv-3515-PJH

24-cv-3516-PJH 17 24-cv-3517-PJH 18 24-cv-3533-PJH 19 24-cv-3534-PJH

24-cv-3537-PJH 20 24-cv-3562-PJH 21 24-cv-3563-PJH 22 24-cv-3564-PJH

24-cv-3600-PJH 23 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE 24 CASES WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 26 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas 27 1 YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In 2 re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7. 3 Plaintiff presents nearly identical claims in these actions. He names as 4 defendants various state courts and federal judges. He seeks relief regarding his 5 underlying conviction or how his other cases were handled by the state and federal 6 courts. 7 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, 8 he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is 9 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 10 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case 11 No. 13-0951 CW. 12 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent 13 danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an 14 IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 15 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S. 16 District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 17 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with 18 prejudice. The court notes that plaintiff has an extensive history of filing similar frivolous 19 cases.1 20 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality 21 might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. 22 See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate 23 reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases 24 assigned to that judge). 2 25 1 The undersigned is the fourth judge assigned cases filed by plaintiff. This is the 64th 26 order issued by the undersigned since April 30, 2020, pertaining to 882 different cases. Plaintiff filed 962 other cases with the three other judges since 2011. 27 2 Plaintiff names the undersigned as defendant in one of these cases, though presents no 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: June 25, 2024 5 6 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 7 United States District Judge

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27