Bonilla v. Sonoma County Superior Court

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 24-cv-2153-PJH Plaintiff, 24-cv-2180-PJH 5 24-cv-2181-PJH v. 6 24-cv-2182-PJH 7 24-cv-2239-PJH STATE OF CALIFORNIA et. al., 24-cv-2241-PJH 8 Defendants. 24-cv-2242-PJH 9 24-cv-2243-PJH 10 24-cv-2254-PJH

24-cv-2261-PJH 11 24-cv-2308-PJH 12 24-cv-2437-PJH 13 24-cv-2438-PJH

24-cv-2439-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 state courts and agencies. 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." 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. IT IS SO ORDERED. S 14 || Dated: April 29, 2024 15 Z 16 f 4 [4 i PHYLLIS J; HAMILTON 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ‘The undersigned is the fourth judge assigned cases filed by plaintiff. This is the 62nd 2g || order issued by the undersigned since April 30, 2020, pertaining to 840 different cases. Plaintiff filed 962 other cases with the three other judges since 2011.