Bonilla v. Marin County
Filing
4
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 1/7/2022. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2022)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)
Case 4:21-cv-10015-PJH Document 4 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA,
6
Plaintiff,
7
v.
8
9
MARIN COUNTY, et. al.,
10
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
Case Nos. 21-cv-010015-PJH
21-cv-010016-PJH
21-cv-010017-PJH
21-cv-010018-PJH
21-cv-010019-PJH
21-cv-010020-PJH
21-cv-010021-PJH
21-cv-010022-PJH
21-cv-010024-PJH
21-cv-010025-PJH
21-cv-010026-PJH
21-cv-010028-PJH
21-cv-010030-PJH
21-cv-010031-PJH
ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE
CASES WITH PREJUDICE
17
18
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
Plaintiff presents nearly identical claims in these actions. 1 He seeks relief
25
regarding his underlying conviction or how his other cases were handled by the state and
26
federal courts.
27
28
1
To the extent a second plaintiff wishes to also proceed in these actions, that plaintiff
must file his own separate cases.
Case 4:21-cv-10015-PJH Document 4 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 2
To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases,
1
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.
The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent
6
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.
District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) or Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the cases are dismissed with
12
prejudice.
Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality
13
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).2
The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk
18
19
shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
Dated: January 7, 2022
22
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Plaintiff names the undersigned as defendant in one of these cases. Case No. 21-cv010031-PJH. The complaint raises no specific allegations against the undersigned and is
frivolous. Plaintiff does not seek recusal, nor is recusal warranted in light of the frivolous
nature of the case.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?