Bonilla v. Kaufman

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 22-cv-5345-PJH Plaintiff, 22-cv-5346-PJH 6 22-cv-5347-PJH v. 7 22-cv-5348-PJH 8 22-cv-5351-PJH JUDGE STEVEN BARNES et. al., 22-cv-5352-PJH 9 Defendants. 22-cv-5353-PJH 10 22-cv-5354-PJH 11 22-cv-5355-PJH

22-cv-5356-PJH 12 22-cv-5357-PJH 13 22-cv-5358-PJH 14 22-cv-5359-PJH

22-cv-5360-PJH 15 22-cv-5361-PJH 16 22-cv-5362-PJH 17 22-cv-5363-PJH

22-cv-5391-PJH 18 22-cv-5392-PJH 19 22-cv-5393-PJH 20 22-cv-5401-PJH

22-cv-5402-PJH 21 22-cv-5403-PJH 22 22-cv-5406-PJH 23 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE 24 CASES WITH PREJUDICE

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 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 numerous state courts and state judges. He seeks relief regarding his 5 underlying conviction or how his other cases were handled by the state and federal 6 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. 19 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 20 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: September 26, 2022 23 24 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 25 United States District Judge 26