Bonilla et al v. Humboldt County Superior Court

Filing 2

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)

Download PDF
Case 4:21-cv-10020-PJH Document 2 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-10020-PJH Document 2 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?