Bonilla v. Seeborg

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 29, 2021
• Docket: 4:21-cv-00654
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 21-cv-00651-PJH Plaintiff, 21-cv-00652-PJH 8 21-cv-00654-PJH v. 9 21-cv-00655-PJH

10 JUDGE JOSEPH C. SPERO, et. al., 21-cv-00656-PJH Defendants. 21-cv-00657-PJH 11 21-cv-00658-PJH

12 21-cv-00659-PJH 13 21-cv-00660-PJH 21-cv-00661-PJH 14 21-cv-00662-PJH

15 21-cv-00676-PJH 16 21-cv-00677-PJH

17 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE 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 In these civil rights cases plaintiff names as defendants’ various federal and state 25 court judges. Plaintiff presents very similar claims in these cases. He seeks relief 26 regarding his underlying conviction or how his various pro se habeas petitions and other 27 cases were handled by the state and federal courts. 1 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, 2 he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is 3 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 4 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case 5 No. 13-0951 CW. 6 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent 7 danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an 8 IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 9 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S. 10 District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 11 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with 12 prejudice. 13 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality 14 might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. 15 See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate 16 reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases 17 assigned to that judge).1 18 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 19 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: January 29, 2021 22 23 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 24 United States District Judge 25 26 1 Plaintiff names the undersigned as defendant in one of these cases. Case No. 21-cv- 27 00657-PJH. The brief complaint raises no specific allegations against the undersigned