Bonilla v. Illman

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 24-cv-7972-PJH Plaintiff, 24-cv-8268-PJH 5 24-cv-8410-PJH v. 6 24-cv-8411-PJH 7 24-cv-8412-PJH U.S. DISTRICT COURT SAN 24-cv-8413-PJH 8 FRANCISCO et. al., 24-cv-8414-PJH Defendants. 9 24-cv-8472-PJH 10 24-cv-8473-PJH 24-cv-8501-PJH 11 24-cv-8553-PJH

12 24-cv-8554-PJH 13 24-cv-8555-PJH 24-cv-8632-PJH 14 24-cv-8842-PJH

15 24-cv-8843-PJH 16 24-cv-8844-PJH 24-cv-8845-PJH 17 24-cv-8846-PJH

18 24-cv-8848-PJH 19 24-cv-8849-PJH 24-cv-8850-PJH 20 24-cv-8851-PJH

21 24-cv-8852-PJH 22 24-cv-8854-PJH 24-cv-8855-PJH 23 24-cv-8856-PJH

24 24-cv-8858-PJH 25 24-cv-9022-PJH 24-cv-9024-PJH 26 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE 27 CASES WITH PREJUDICE 1 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 2 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas 3 petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 4 YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In 5 re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7. 6 Plaintiff presents nearly identical claims in these actions. He names as 7 defendants various federal and state judges and other officials. He seeks relief regarding 8 his underlying conviction or how his other cases were handled by the state and federal 9 courts. 10 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, 11 he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is 12 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 13 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case 14 No. 13-0951 CW. 15 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent 16 danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an 17 IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 18 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S. 19 District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 20 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with 21 prejudice. The court notes that plaintiff has an extensive history of filing similar frivolous 22 cases.1 23 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality 24 might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. 25 See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate 26

27 1 The undersigned is the fourth judge assigned cases filed by plaintiff. This is the 70th 1 reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases 2 assigned to that judge). 2 3 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 4 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: December 16, 2024 7 8 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 9 United States District Judge

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 2 Plaintiff names the undersigned as a defendant in one of these cases, though presents