Bonilla v. Hamilton

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 6, 2025
• Docket: 4:24-cv-09152
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 24-cv-8847-PJH Plaintiff, 24-cv-8857-PJH 7 24-cv-9025-PJH v. 8 24-cv-9026-PJH 9 24-cv-9152-PJH JUDGE KELLY V. SIMMONS et. al., 24-cv-9153-PJH 10 Defendants. 24-cv-9175-PJH 11 24-cv-9256-PJH 12 24-cv-9257-PJH

24-cv-9258-PJH 13 24-cv-9259-PJH 14 24-cv-9260-PJH 15 24-cv-9261-PJH

24-cv-9262-PJH 16 24-cv-9263-PJH 17 24-cv-9264-PJH 18 24-cv-9266-PJH

24-cv-9267-PJH 19 24-cv-9269-PJH 20 24-cv-9270-PJH 21 24-cv-9271-PJH

24-cv-9272-PJH 22 24-cv-9281-PJH 23 24-cv-9282-PJH 24 24-cv-9284-PJH

24-cv-9458-PJH 25 24-cv-9459-PJH 26 24-cv-9460-PJH 27 24-cv-9461-PJH 1 24-cv-9491-PJH 24-cv-9492-PJH 2 24-cv-9495-PJH 3 24-cv-9496-PJH 4 24-cv-9497-PJH 24-cv-9498-PJH 5

6 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE CASES WITH PREJUDICE 7

8 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 9 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas 10 petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 11 YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In 12 re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7. 13 Plaintiff presents nearly identical claims in these actions. He names as 14 defendants various federal and state judges and other officials. He seeks relief regarding 15 his underlying conviction or how his other cases were handled by the state and federal 16 courts. 17 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, 18 he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is 19 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 20 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case 21 No. 13-0951 CW. 22 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent 23 danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an 24 IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 25 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S. 26 District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 27 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with 1 prejudice. The court notes that plaintiff has an extensive history of filing similar frivolous 2 cases.1 3 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality 4 might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. 5 See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate 6 reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases 7 assigned to that judge). 2 8 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 9 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: January 6, 2025 12 13 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 14 United States District Judge

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 The undersigned is the fourth judge assigned cases filed by plaintiff. This is the 71st 26 order issued by the undersigned since April 30, 2020, pertaining to 1,003 different cases. Plaintiff filed 962 other cases with the three other judges since 2011. 27 2 Plaintiff names the undersigned as a defendant in two of these cases, though presents