Bonilla v. Santa Clara County

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 22, 2022
• Docket: 4:22-cv-00381
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 22-cv-0275-PJH Plaintiff, 22-cv-0381-PJH 6 22-cv-0432-PJH v. 7 22-cv-0433-PJH 8 22-cv-0666-PJH SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, et. al., 22-cv-0883-PJH 9 Defendants. 22-cv-0885-PJH 10 22-cv-0886-PJH 11 22-cv-0888-PJH

22-cv-0925-PJH 12 22-cv-0966-PJH 13 22-cv-0967-PJH 14 22-cv-0968-PJH

22-cv-0969-PJH 15

16 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE 17 CASES WITH PREJUDICE

19 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 20 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas 21 petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 22 YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In 23 re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7. 24 Plaintiff presents nearly identical claims in these actions. He names as 25 defendants dozens of federal and state judges. He seeks relief regarding his underlying 26 conviction or how his other cases were handled by the state and federal courts. 27 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, 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 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). 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 22, 2022 20 21 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27