Bonilla v. Horner

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: July 14, 2020
• Docket: 4:20-cv-03404
• 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-02982-PJH Plaintiffs, 20-cv-02994-PJH 8 20-cv-02998-PJH v. 20-cv-03167-PJH 9 20-cv-03351-PJH 10 20-cv-03354-PJH Defendants. 20-cv-03396-PJH 11 20-cv-03404-PJH 20-cv-04314-PJH 12 20-cv-04462-PJH 20-cv-04524-PJH 13

14 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE CASES WITH PREJUDICE 15

16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas 18 petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 19 YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In 20 re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7 21 In these civil rights cases plaintiff names as defendants’ various federal judges, 22 state judges, municipalities and other municipal and court officials. Plaintiff presents very 23 similar claims in all these cases. He seeks relief regarding his underlying conviction or 24 how his various pro se habeas petitions and other cases were handled by the state and 25 federal courts. 26 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, 27 he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is 1 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 2 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case 3 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 14, 2020 19 20 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27