Bonilla v. Superior Court, County of Santa Clara

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 9, 2021
• Docket: 4:21-cv-01521
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case Nos. 21-cv-01345-PJH Plaintiff, 21-cv-01346-PJH 9 21-cv-01452-PJH v. 10 21-cv-01489-PJH

11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et. al., 21-cv-01490-PJH Defendants. 21-cv-01491-PJH 12 21-cv-01520-PJH

13 21-cv-01521-PJH 14 21-cv-01522-PJH 21-cv-01523-PJH 15 21-cv-01576-PJH

16 21-cv-01577-PJH 17 21-cv-01578-PJH 21-cv-01579-PJH 18 21-cv-01580-PJH

19 21-cv-01581-PJH 20 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE 21 CASES WITH PREJUDICE

23 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42 24 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas 25 petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471 26 YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In 27 1 In these civil rights cases plaintiff names as defendants’ various federal judges, 2 state judges, counties and federal agencies. Plaintiff presents very similar claims in 3 these cases. He seeks relief regarding his underlying conviction or how his various pro 4 se habeas petitions and other cases were handled by the state and federal courts. 5 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases, 6 he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is 7 “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28 8 U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case 9 No. 13-0951 CW. 10 The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent 11 danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an 12 IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 13 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S. 14 District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 15 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with 16 prejudice. 17 The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk 18 shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: March 9, 2021 21 22 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27