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)

Download PDF
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

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?