Bonilla v. Volkman

Filing 2

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 9/19/2022. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2022)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
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.
HUMBOLDT COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT et. al.,
Defendants.

12
13

Case Nos. 22-cv-5122-PJH
22-cv-5124-PJH
22-cv-5132-PJH
22-cv-5133-PJH
22-cv-5134-PJH
22-cv-5185-PJH
22-cv-5186-PJH
22-cv-5187-PJH
22-cv-5210-PJH
22-cv-5211-PJH
ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE
CASES WITH PREJUDICE

14
15
16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

defendants several state courts, state judges and other state and federal officials. He

23

seeks relief regarding his underlying conviction or how his other cases were handled by

24

the state and federal courts.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

1

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

2

No. 13-0951 CW.

3
4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

prejudice.

10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

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.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: September 19, 2022

14
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2