Bonilla v. Federal Bureau of Investigations

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 25-cv-4482-PJH Plaintiff, 25-cv-4527-PJH 7 25-cv-4658-PJH v. 8 25-cv-4711-PJH 9 25-cv-4894-PJH U.S. DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN 25-cv-4895-PJH 10 DISTRICT JUDGES AND COURT CLERKS et. al., 25-cv-5198-PJH 11 Defendants. 25-cv-5199-PJH 12 25-cv-5200-PJH 25-cv-5248-PJH 13 25-cv-5249-PJH 14 25-cv-5251-PJH 15 25-cv-5252-PJH 25-cv-5253-PJH 16 25-cv-5254-PJH 17 25-cv-5255-PJH 18 25-cv-5256-PJH 25-cv-5257-PJH 19 25-cv-5295-PJH 20 25-cv-5297-PJH 21 25-cv-5300-PJH 22 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE 23 CASES WITH PREJUDICE 24 25 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, 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 petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 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 federal and state courts and government agencies. He seeks relief 5 regarding his underlying conviction or how his other cases were handled by the state and 6 federal 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 76th 26 order issued by the undersigned since April 30, 2020, pertaining to 1,116 different cases. Plaintiff filed 962 other cases with the three other judges since 2011. 27 2 Plaintiff names the Northern District as a defendant in two of these cases, though 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 30, 2025 5 6 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27