Bonilla v. Napa County Superior Court

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 28, 2024
• Docket: 4:24-cv-00609
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 24-cv-0457-PJH Plaintiff, 24-cv-0607-PJH 5 24-cv-0608-PJH v. 6 24-cv-0609-PJH 7 24-cv-0610-PJH SANTA CLARA SUPERIOR COURT et. 24-cv-0629-PJH 8 al., 24-cv-0630-PJH Defendants. 9 24-cv-0658-PJH 10 24-cv-0659-PJH 24-cv-0820-PJH 11 24-cv-0849-PJH

12 24-cv-0850-PJH 13 24-cv-0851-PJH 24-cv-1055-PJH 14

15 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE CASES WITH PREJUDICE 16

17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas 19 petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 20 YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In 21 re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7. 22 Plaintiff presents nearly identical claims in these actions. He names as 23 defendants various federal and state judges. He seeks relief regarding his underlying 24 conviction or how his other cases were handled by the state and federal courts. 25 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, 26 he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is 27 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 1 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case 2 No. 13-0951 CW. 3 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent 4 danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an 5 IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 6 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S. 7 District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 8 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with 9 prejudice. The court notes that plaintiff has an extensive history of filing similar frivolous 10 cases.1 11 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality 12 might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. 13 See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate 14 reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases 15 assigned to that judge).2 16 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 17 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: February 28, 2024 20 21 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 22 United States District Judge 23 24

25 1 The undersigned is the fourth judge assigned cases filed by plaintiff. This is the 60th order issued by the undersigned since April 30, 2020, pertaining to 800 different cases. 26 Plaintiff filed 962 other cases with the three other judges since 2011. 2 Plaintiff names the undersigned as defendant in three of these cases, though presents 27 no specific allegations. Case Nos. 24-cv-0630-PJH; 24-cv-0850 PJH; 24-cv-1055 PJH.