Bonilla v. Averill

Filing 2

ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE CASES WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 5/26/2023. (ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/26/2023)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
v.

7
8

LEONARD L. CASE et. al.,

9

Defendants.

Case Nos. 23-cv-1672-PJH
23-cv-1674-PJH
23-cv-1853-PJH
23-cv-1854-PJH
23-cv-2021-PJH
23-cv-2144-PJH
23-cv-2551-PJH

10
ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE
CASES WITH PREJUDICE

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

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed multiple pro se civil rights complaints under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a condemned prisoner who also has a pending federal habeas
petition in this court with appointed counsel. See Bonilla v. Ayers, Case No. 08-0471
YGR. Plaintiff is also represented by counsel in state court habeas proceedings. See In
re Bonilla, Case No. 20-2986 PJH, Docket No. 1 at 7.
Plaintiff presents nearly identical claims in these actions. He names as
defendants various state judges and court employees. He seeks relief regarding his
underlying conviction or how his other cases were handled by the state and federal
courts.
To the extent that plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in these cases,
he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless he is
“under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 28
U.S.C. 1915(g); In re Steven Bonilla, Case No. 11-3180 CW; Bonilla v. Dawson, Case
No. 13-0951 CW.

1
2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

prejudice.

8
9
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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 26, 2023

12
13
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

14
15

T:\PJHALL\_psp\2023\Bonilla '23\Bonilla Dismissals5.docx

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