Bonilla v. Contra Costa County Superior Court

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 27, 2023
• Docket: 4:23-cv-01278
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 23-cv-0851-PJH Plaintiff, 23-cv-1071-PJH 6 23-cv-1236-PJH v. 7 23-cv-1275-PJH 8 23-cv-1276-PJH COURT CLERK’S OFFICE et. al., 23-cv-1278-PJH 9 Defendants. 23-cv-1279-PJH 10 23-cv-1280-PJH 11 23-cv-1283-PJH

23-cv-1284-PJH 12 23-cv-1285-PJH 13 23-cv-1286-PJH 14 23-cv-1287-PJH

23-cv-1331-PJH 15 23-cv-1333-PJH 16 23-cv-1355-PJH 17 23-cv-1356-PJH

18 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE 19 CASES WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 21 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas 22 petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 23 YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In 24 re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7. 25 Plaintiff presents nearly identical claims in these actions. He names as 26 defendants various federal and state judges and court officials. He seeks relief regarding 27 1 courts. 2 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, 3 he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is 4 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 5 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case 6 No. 13-0951 CW. 7 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent 8 danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an 9 IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 10 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S. 11 District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 12 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with 13 prejudice. 14 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality 15 might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. 16 See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate 17 reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases 18 assigned to that judge).1 19 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 20 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: March 27, 2023 23 24 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 25 United States District Judge 26

27 1 Plaintiff names the undersigned as defendant in one of these cases, though presents no