Bonilla v. San Francisco County Superior Court Judges et al

Filing 2

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 11/25/2024. (kc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2024)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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA,
Plaintiff,

5
v.

6
7
8

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT et. al.,
Defendants.

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

Case Nos. 24-cv-7317-PJH
24-cv-7377-PJH
24-cv-7379-PJH
24-cv-7526-PJH
24-cv-7527-PJH
24-cv-7840-PJH
24-cv-7841-PJH
24-cv-7842-PJH
24-cv-7880-PJH
24-cv-8010-PJH
24-cv-8261-PJH
24-cv-8263-PJH
24-cv-8264-PJH
24-cv-8265-PJH
24-cv-8266-PJH
ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE
CASES WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, 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 and state courts. 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

1

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

2

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

3

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

United States District Court
Northern District of California

4
5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

cases.1

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

assigned to that judge). 2
The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close these cases. The clerk

17
18

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

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated: November 25, 2024

21
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The undersigned is the fourth judge assigned cases filed by plaintiff. This is the 69th
order issued by the undersigned since April 30, 2020, pertaining to 937 different cases.
Plaintiff filed 962 other cases with the three other judges since 2011.
2
Plaintiff names the undersigned as a defendant in two of these cases, though presents
no specific allegations. See Case Nos. 24-7377; 24-7526. Plaintiff does not seek
recusal, nor is recusal warranted considering the frivolous nature of the cases.
2