Bonilla v. Ervine

N.D. California

Bonilla v. Ervine

DecidedDecember 1, 2020

Docket4:20-cv-07971

StatusUnknown

This text of Bonilla v. Ervine (Bonilla v. Ervine) 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 v. Ervine, (N.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 20-cv-07866-PJH Plaintiff, 20-cv-07867-PJH 7 20-cv-07868-PJH v. 20-cv-07963-PJH 8 20-cv-07964-PJH 9 BRIAN ROSS ARONSON, et. al., 20-cv-07965-PJH 20-cv-07966-PJH Defendants. 10 20-cv-07968-PJH 20-cv-07971-PJH 11 20-cv-08002-PJH 20-cv-08004-PJH 12 20-cv-08005-PJH 13 20-cv-08006-PJH 20-cv-08007-PJH

14 20-cv-08008-PJH 20-cv-08024-PJH 15 20-cv-08025-PJH 20-cv-08026-PJH 16 20-cv-08220-PJH 17 20-cv-08221-PJH 20-cv-08222-PJH

18 20-cv-08223-PJH 20-cv-08224-PJH 19 20-cv-08225-PJH 20 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE 21 CASES WITH PREJUDICE

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

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

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 20-cv-07866-PJH Plaintiff, 20-cv-07867-PJH 7 20-cv-07868-PJH v. 20-cv-07963-PJH 8 20-cv-07964-PJH 9 BRIAN ROSS ARONSON, et. al., 20-cv-07965-PJH 20-cv-07966-PJH Defendants. 10 20-cv-07968-PJH 20-cv-07971-PJH 11 20-cv-08002-PJH 20-cv-08004-PJH 12 20-cv-08005-PJH 13 20-cv-08006-PJH 20-cv-08007-PJH

14 20-cv-08008-PJH 20-cv-08024-PJH 15 20-cv-08025-PJH 20-cv-08026-PJH 16 20-cv-08220-PJH 17 20-cv-08221-PJH 20-cv-08222-PJH

18 20-cv-08223-PJH 20-cv-08224-PJH 19 20-cv-08225-PJH 20 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE 21 CASES WITH PREJUDICE

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bonilla v. Ervine, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonilla-v-ervine-cand-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack