Bonilla v. San Francisco County Superior Court

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 27, 2023
• Docket: 4:23-cv-00033
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 23-cv-0031-PJH Plaintiff, 23-cv-0032-PJH 6 23-cv-0033-PJH v. 7 23-cv-0034-PJH 8 23-cv-0068-PJH EL DORADO COUNTY SUPERIOR 23-cv-0254-PJH 9 COURT et. al., 23-cv-0356-PJH Defendants. 10 23-cv-0357-PJH 11 23-cv-0358-PJH 23-cv-0359-PJH 12 23-cv-0360-PJH

13 14 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE CASES WITH PREJUDICE

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 Plaintiff presents nearly identical claims in these actions. He names as 22 defendants various state superior courts, state judges and federal judges in the Eastern 23 District of California. He seeks relief regarding his underlying conviction or how his other 24 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. 10 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 11 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: January 27, 2023 14 15 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 16 United States District Judge 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27