Bonilla v. Orrick

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 9/26/2024. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2024)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
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

v.
JUDGE BETH L. FREEMAN et. al.,
Defendants.

Case Nos. 24-cv-5991-PJH
24-cv-5992-PJH
24-cv-6333-PJH
24-cv-6334-PJH
24-cv-6655-PJH
24-cv-6656-PJH
24-cv-6657-PJH
24-cv-6658-PJH
24-cv-6659-PJH
24-cv-6660-PJH
ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE
CASES WITH PREJUDICE

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 federal and state judges. 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

1

No. 13-0951 CW.
The allegations in these complaints do not show that plaintiff was in imminent

2
3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

prejudice. The court notes that plaintiff has an extensive history of filing similar frivolous

9

cases.1
Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10
11

might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings.

12

See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (absent legitimate

13

reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases

14

assigned to that judge).
The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk

15
16

shall return, without filing, any further documents plaintiff submits in these closed cases.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated: September 26, 2024

19
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The undersigned is the fourth judge assigned cases filed by plaintiff. This is the 67th
order issued by the undersigned since April 30, 2020, pertaining to 899 different cases.
Plaintiff filed 962 other cases with the three other judges since 2011.
2