Bonilla v. California Attorney General et al

Filing 2

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 7/29/2022. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2022)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)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA,
Plaintiff,

6
7
8
9
10

Case Nos. 22-cv-4316-PJH
22-cv-4347-PJH

v.
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL
et. al.,

ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE
CASES WITH PREJUDICE

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

Plaintiff presents nearly identical claims in these actions. He names as

18

defendants several state officials and seeks relief regarding his underlying conviction or

19

how his other cases were handled by the state and federal courts.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

No. 13-0951 CW.

25

The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent

26

danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed IFP. Moreover, even if an

27

IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

prejudice.

4
5
6
7

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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 29, 2022

8
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2