Bonilla v. Hamilton

Filing 2

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 9/21/2020. ***Civil Case Terminated. (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2020)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA,
Plaintiffs,

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

v.
Defendants.

Case Nos. 20-cv-06002-PJH
20-cv-06003-PJH
20-cv-06114-PJH
20-cv-06293-PJH
20-cv-06294-PJH
20-cv-06295-PJH
20-cv-06296-PJH
20-cv-06329-PJH
20-cv-06330-PJH
20-cv-06338-PJH
20-cv-06339-PJH
20-cv-06341-PJH
20-cv-06342-PJH
20-cv-06366-PJH
20-cv-06367-PJH
20-cv-06369-PJH
20-cv-06370-PJH
20-cv-06394-PJH
20-cv-06395-PJH
20-cv-06396-PJH
20-cv-06397-PJH
20-cv-06461-PJH

19
20

ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE
CASES WITH PREJUDICE

21
22

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42

23

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas

24

petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471

25

YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In

26

re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7

27
28

In these civil rights cases plaintiff names as defendants’ various state courts,
federal judges and court officials. Plaintiff presents very similar claims in all these cases.

1

He seeks relief regarding his underlying conviction or how his various pro se habeas

2

petitions and other cases were handled by the state and federal courts.

3

To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases,

4

he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is

5

“under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28

6

U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case

7

No. 13-0951 CW.

8
9

The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent
danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an
IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Demos v. U.S.

12

District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court,

13

828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with

14

prejudice.

15

Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality

16

might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings.

17

See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate

18

reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases

19

assigned to that judge).

20
21

The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk
shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: September 21, 2020

24
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2