Bonilla v. Simmons

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 20-cv-08504-PJH Plaintiff, 20-cv-08505-PJH 7 20-cv-08506-PJH v. 8 20-cv-08697-PJH

9 JUDGE KELLY V. SIMMONS, et. al., 20-cv-09152-PJH

Defendants. 10 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE

11 CASES WITH PREJUDICE

13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas 15 petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 16 YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In 17 re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7. 18 In these civil rights cases plaintiff names as defendants’ various federal and state 19 court judges. Plaintiff presents very similar claims in these cases. He seeks relief 20 regarding his underlying conviction or how his various pro se habeas petitions and other 21 cases were handled by the state and federal courts. 22 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, 23 he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is 24 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 25 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case 26 No. 13-0951 CW. 27 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent 1 IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 2 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S. 3 District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 4 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with 5 prejudice. 6 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality 7 might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. 8 See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate 9 reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases 10 assigned to that judge). 11 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 12 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: December 29, 2020 15 16 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27