Bonilla v. Clay

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: July 6, 2020
• Docket: 4:20-cv-03348
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 20-cv-03347-PJH Plaintiffs, 20-cv-03348-PJH 8 20-cv-03350-PJH v. 20-cv-03352-PJH 9 20-cv-03353-PJH 10 20-cv-03355-PJH Defendants. 20-cv-03398-PJH 11 20-cv-03402-PJH 20-cv-03403-PJH 12 20-cv-04231-PJH 20-cv-04233-PJH 13 20-cv-04234-PJH 14

15 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE

CASES WITH PREJUDICE 16

17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. He also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases. 19 Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas petition in this 20 court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 YGR. Plaintiff is 21 also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In re Bonilla, Case 22 No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7 23 In these civil rights cases plaintiff names as defendants’ various federal or state 24 judges. All of these actions are one of two similar complaints where plaintiff has changed 25 the name of the defendant. He seeks relief regarding his underlying conviction or how 26 his various pro se habeas petitions were handled by the state and federal courts. 27 Plaintiff has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 1 unless he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his 2 complaint. 28 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. 3 Dawson, Case No. 13-0951 CW. 4 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent 5 danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an 6 IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 7 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S. 8 District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 9 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with 10 prejudice. 11 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality 12 might be reasonably questioned. See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th 13 Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to 14 sit in judgment in all cases assigned to that judge). 15 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 16 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: July 6, 2020 19 20 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27